Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet

Two things have been said that might come in handy here; one is that “money is an idea backed with confidence, or enforced confidence”, and the other is that “on the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth.”.

As you see, their common key is trust, confidence, and the subject of letting go of one’s wallet is definitely a matter of trust. Anything – I mean, anything – is but agreement, and property rights are no exception. Just consider how it would be if we became totally barbarous: we would spend all our time tearing morsels from each other’s grasp; anything but property rights, not even possession would survive. And that is more than just a joke; property stems from possession, and it’s an advance in civilization: things can remain yours – property – even if you put them down for a moment – possession –. And both possession and property are based on agreement: we can have, whether it be possession or property, because our fellows agree that we can and abide by such agreement, refraining from both tearing things from our grasp and ignoring our claims of ownership on them when we put them down.

When it comes to your money, there are two agreements by the other people: one is that your money has purchasing power, the other is that that money is yours. I think we discussed the first agreement at considerable length; now let’s take a look at the second: what is yours, and how, exactly?

Because one facet of the ambiguous money cycle is the progressive dematerialisation of money. Do you think money is made to transcend into “pure essence” for your convenience? To figure it out, let’s review the different incarnations of money through the cycle from the viewpoint of the agreement on its ownership.

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 2

When money has intrinsic value, that intrinsic value belongs to its bearer: possession is property.
When money has no intrinsic value, but physicallly still exists, independent from the agreement about its value, the agreement about its ownership is roughly the same than that of the money with intrinsic value: possession is property.
Things begin to change with deposits and the fractional reserve drift: a third party interposes, claiming and hogging the role of guarantor – but it would be better to call it the role of monopolistic holder of the holy scriptures: when you entrust your physical money you surrender its possession, so what do you receive in exchange to attest that money not in your possession anymore is nonetheless your property? Some form of certificate attesting it. Certified etymologically means made certain, and this implies a statement made by someone and acknowledged by others. Now you have a third party interposing, accepted as authoritative in attesting your property.

There exists the concept of public registry: the property of certain things like cars and houses is certified by an entry in it to that effect, rather than by possession alone. The conbination of this function of attesting property with other complementary functions such as law enforcement is supposed to be entrusted to and performed by a public body at the service of citizens.

We will see later on how this “supposed to” is not to be taken for granted. For now, let’s consider the possibility that this is no longer the case in abstract terms. It may sound a bit more academic than real−life now, but it is fit to mention it here for the sake of completeness as one of the obvious tools of moneypulators is controlling the public functions; as to its progress and full scope, we will see them later on.

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 3

When you appoint a certification authority you entrust it with the related power. The parties appoint an arbitrator and in doing so they also accept to abide by its arbitration. The point is the gap from arbitration to arbitrariness, and that authority can turn into arbitrariness the power entrusted to it by altering, canceling, ransoming its entries in various ways: it can alter them to the advantage of someone and to the detriment of someone else, it can extort money based on them, it can interfere with their use for power, control and suppression purposes.

I’ll explain where this goes with an example: the digital “Cloud” now in fashion.
As digital tools advance, we move more and more of our heritage to them. “To move”, in addition to putting things in the destination, also tends to mean removing those things from the source. Hence an increasing reliance on those digital tools, while we’re enticed by “practicality” to get rid of the originals in our hands in favour of the copies.
Then comes the “Cloud”: based partly on efficiency and partly on our humanoid faults, we’re convinced to delegate to others the care for our heritage for a fee. Well, it could be said that delegating the care for one’s belongings, just like outsourcing in business, is an implicit admission of incapability: if you make me do this, maybe it’s because it’s cheaper to you, in which case chances are it ultimately is at the expence of someone, but it is far more likely that it’s because you were unable to do it yourself.
Then, little by little, our heritage in the digital cloud is no longer ours any more. After possession, property is questioned as well. “Terms and conditions” shift in the shade of their awkwardness and nuisance, and in the shade of those terms and conditions products become services. You think you’ve bought a book, a record, an ice cream, but you didn’t: they rented it to you. Your heritage is not yours anymore, now in terms of property as well as in terms of possession. Ok, so what?

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 4

As we pointed out before, property is the legally protected right to the enjoyment of goods, and includes the power of disposition over them. Renting instead of buying opens the door to an increasing trend of power transfer from you to them over things. That is, zooming from the “infinitely small” to the “infinitely large”, ultimately an increasing transfer of sovereignty from you to them. This is in fact another case where the gist finds endless applications in day−to−day life, each of whom a negligible brick if laid on the walls under construction of a prison planet, one where you have to obtain permission for anything, breathing included, and to begin with.

If you think I’m overestimating how far this gist can go, here’s a case to put it in perspective, and at the same time show its place within the core mechanisms forming the moneypulators’ philosopher’s stone.
Four odd things have been observed on U.S. birth certificates: top left outside the form data, there is an unidentified, seemingly progressive number; the name of the newborn baby (last, first and second) is printed in all caps; the certificate is a copy issued on “special Bank Bond paper”; the certificate is authorised by “American BankNote Company”, as indicated within the form frame bottom. Well, that is the rationale that has been offered for such “oddities” by those who investigated them:
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed, creating the U.S. “federal”, “central” bank; after just twenty years, in 1933, the country was bankrupt: unable to pay its “debt”, while the private banks owning the Federal Reserve demanded “their money” back. That banksters did a good job of getting the country bankrupt in a mere twenty years supports the fact that it was a crime against U.S. citizens, and in the long run against humanity.
When one can’t repay debts, to still have credit to survive one has to have something else to pledge as collateral; guess what “something else” did a bankrupted government, with apparently nothing more left to collateralise, resort to? That “something else” is rather a “someone else”…

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 5

The U.S. government, to continue “doing business with the Federal Reserve”, that is, to continue backing its play – and holding its bag – pledged as collateral to it ITS OWN CITIZENS. You. I mean, you personally, in person, firsthand.
It has been reported that every birth or naturalisation certificate is actually not much the record of the physical birth of a human being, but rather a government’s self−created document attesting the “birth” of its new “property”: a legal person whose company name corresponds to the real person’s name. This “legal person” is a sort of “corporation”, and the taxes and wealth it is expected to generate over its lifetime are that “additional” collateral pledged by Uncle Sam to the Federal Reserve. Birth certificates are a form of security that appear to qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code, the law governing commercial papers and transactions, as there is a “storage location”, a date of issue, a consecutive number, a “description of the goods”, and the signature of the “warehouse” authorised agent, and by dictionary definition a warehouse receipt may be a negotiable instrument, often used as a security. And indeed it is reported as being used so: when a state registers a birth with the federal government, the latter uses that birth to take a loan from the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve values each birth between six hundred and fifty and seven hundred and fifty thousand of its dollars. It does so based on the collateral represented by the future tax revenues of the legal person in the birth certificate, and on the inescapable assumption that the government can guarantee to the Federal Reserve the labour and tax revenues of all citizens. Or even their personal assets and properties, if need be…

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 6

That’s the rationale behind those “oddities” in birth certificates: the unidentified top left number is actually a progressive number counting up the government’s “properties”; the all−caps name is not much the name of the natural person, which wouldn’t ever be written in all caps, but rather the juristic all−caps “company name” of a legal person in the same name of the natural person; the “special Bank Bond paper” entails the definitions of bond: the undertaking to fulfil an obligation, or an interest−bearing document giving evidence of a debt, that may be secured by a collateral; the “American BankNote Company” authorising it entails the definition of banknote: essentially a kind of negotiable instrument, a promissory note issued by a bank and payable to the bearer on demand – of course! Payable in what, exactly? –, used as money.
This whole scheme has been summarised as follows: “Congratulations: you and I are commodities!” Or, better yet: “Surprise! You don’t own yourself – The FED owns you!” Jokes aside – assuming that such things are jokes –, let aside our inclination to understatement and irony, and legal and formal technicalities as well, the heart of the matter is that we find ourselves in the enviable position to be unwitting and unvoluntary guarantors of our betrayers in favour of their instigators. It could be said that this carries out the real basic reason for the very existence of governments as Trojan horses: their function as primary tools of coercion first, and then expropriation, of peoples.

Now let’s transpose all this where it may be easier to see it in action: the increasingly pervasive and all−powerful banking monopoly over the flow of the social blood called money.

In the beginning, when you bought an ice cream, you took the money from under your mattress and gave it to the ice cream man, and that was all and nobody else’s business.
Then some handy petty thieves and newsies and legislators came along, and depositing cash where it could be used by bankers to profit through fractional reserve from that money of yours, not theirs, became the order of the day.
And for quite some time now, if you dare to pay that ice cream without the services of some intermediaries, well, you’re an outcast, and we do have every intention to outlaw you, that’ll teach you what some may want to call “an offer that you cannot refuse” is…

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 7

The point is that from the fraudulent crime of fractional reserve on, banking brokerage, dematerialisation of money and surveillance and interference with the use of one’s money progressed in parallel. And the point here is also that the progressive dematerialisation of money, quite in addition to all its other aims, is also instrumental to this specific aim: taking the proof of your right of property off your hands, and give it to more appropriate claws – pardon, hands.

The banking cartel is after seizing not only the monopoly of exchange of purchasing power, but the monopoly of certification of purchasing power itself as well. This second monopoly is something to confront fully as much as the first, if not even more: when we physically exchange a banknote, each one of us expresses his or her own agreement on that physical banknote, and he or she expresses it personally; when we tolerate that a closed system exists and monopolises both the circulation and the certification of our purchasing power, we are abdicating to our right and duty to exercise it personally. And this does not come without consequences.
Suppose A owns 100 units of purchasing power as 100 physical banknotes today and still owns them tomorrow; we acknowledge that A owns those 100 units today and we will still acknowledge the same tomorrow. Then suppose instead that A owns 100 units of purchasing power as a bank statement today, and tomorrow A goes to the bank and the banker says, “Who the hell are you, Mr. … Mr. … A? Security, will you please kick this Mr. A out!” Who is people going to believe? The banker, with all the weight of his standout social position, or Mr. A?
Of course this doesn’t take place today because word of mouth would spread and account holders would flee to competing banks, while Mr. A would turn to law enforcement for justice. In other words, the reason why this doesn’t take place today is because the oligo−monopoly is not strong enough. Not yet.
It won’t take place as long as the oligo−monopoly is not strong enough; but once it is? After all, who are the bankers accountable to as to what they enter in their accounting records?

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 8

Word of mouth would spread and push account holders to flee to… what competing bank? There will be no such thing as a competing bank, not any more. Regardless of business names, the oligo−monopoly will then be strong enough and they won’t have to hide anymore and pretend they are not a cartel.
Mr. A would turn to… what law enforcement? There will be no such thing as a law enforcement, not any more. Regardless of ceremonial officiated, the oligo−monopoly will then be strong enough and they won’t have to hide anymore and pretend law enforcement is anything but their cartel’s armed wing.
At that point, it wouln’t even matter any more whom you’d believe; your abdication of your right and duty to acknowledge purchasing power personally would have reached its end outcome.

The spiral is a given: the more bankers become instrumental, the more money they make; the more money they make, the more politicians and laws they can buy; the more politicians and laws they buy, the more they call the shots with your money.

We have already mentioned the risks intrinsically associated with entrusting any certification authority to third parties; but when it comes to money people get touched to the quick and hopefully offer some more resistance, so the advance of arbitrariness may be, or merely appear, relatively slow.
This in particular takes the form of the separation of powers, so that, should a money certification authority certify untruthfully, there’s another, distinct and separate authority to seek help from.

Well, I wonder if you have noticed that bankers have actively pursued and successfully achieved the monopoly on the circulation of money. And I wonder if you have noticed as well the parallel trends of banks’ estates that expand while industrial zones, shopping streets and residential areas get empty and crumble. Since we know how monopolies grow by spontaneous combustion, do you think there may be any other limit other than either the sky or open−eyed people to the growth of the moneypulators’ monopoly?

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 9

Therefore, if we put together what we have seen here about moneypulation and monopoly we can infer where this road of dematerialising your money off your hands can lead, even though not immediately visible on the horizon, isn’t it?
Moneypulation results in monopoly, and in substance, regardless of the form and of whatever use of the form to cover the substance, monopoly will result in the end of the separation of powers, and in wrapping the resulting absolute power around the moneypulators’ finger. So what?

Those who are trying to wake us up to this issue face considerable difficulties. They point us at specific subjects, but each of them, if we ever notice it at all, seems to us to be a vague, innocuous little dot far away at the horizon. But it’s an optical illusion. Each of these subjects is not vague, it’s not innocuous, and it’s not even that far away at the horizon. Some examples?

·        one world currency and abolition of cash;

·        taxation without representation;

·        dismantling of democratic accountability and transparency;

·        dismantling of civil liberties and militarisation of police forces towards a police state through strategy of tension;

·        information technology and internet of things at the service of global surveillance;

·        subcutaneous RFID (radio frequency identification data) microchips centralising our full economic and civic identity and handing it over to a remote unanswerable authority which thus has got us by the balls completely;

·        New World Order, the conclusively totalitarian One World Government.

Crime Against Humanity: Hands Up and Give Us Your Wallet, 10

I face a similar difficulty because we’re going to face these subjects up ahead and so they risk being taken now less seriously than they ought to be, while quite to the contrary they have to be mentioned here because those subjects and this facet of moneypulation are the various complementary tools of the same core and to the same aim.
And that difficulty is as great as wide is the gap between what each of them looks like at a superficial glance, and what it actually is under that surface. Reality is no stranger to exceeding imagination, and Orwell’s 1984 is no exception.
To put the end result in the right perspective directly, with the least stretch of imagination, and without having to delve into the intricacies of how it is achieved through moneypulation combined with these subjects, let’s go witness the end of the separation of powers and their merger in the hands of moneypulators where basics mechanisms are clear.

Back to Example Island, we find some tens of people living there, but only one is the banker, legislator, judge, police commissioner, academia sponsor and press baron at the same time. Let’s cut to the chase:
We just got there, and the legislator dictates that people shall not be permitted to have cash anymore and that all the money shall be in the form of bank deposits and transfers, and the banker collects all the cash.
The banker then announces he shall have the final say on all money movements, at his discretion.
Then the banker announces usurious rates for all money related services.
Finally, the banker announces that he has confiscated all the money, and that everyone and everything is his property – us included.
At every stage, the people can’t turn to any competing banker, nor can they resort to any “upright” legislator, “impartial” judge, “serve and protect” police commissioner, academic “expert” or “free” journalist; quite to the contrary, they all enforce and endorse the banker’s will. For the very good reason they’re all the same person. And even though outside example island they’re different persons, they all nonetheless eat out of the same banker’s hand.

If we don’t stop putting our hands up and handing our wallet over to the moneypulators, do you think that getting there is still a matter of “if”, or just a matter of “when”?