I think that you may be referring to what is called Misprision (pronounced “mis-priz-eon”) of felony.

MISPRISION. (1) Misprision of felony: “Every one who knows that any other person has committed felony and conceals or procures the concealment thereof, is guilty of misprision of felony” (Steph. Cr. (9th ed.) 158). See also Sykes v. Director of public prosecutions [1962] A.C. 528. [Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Fourth Edition, 1973]

Here the offence requires an overt act of concealment or of procuring concealment, and merely saying nothing or failing to report it, is not an offence.

Now contrast with: Misprision of treason:

MISPRISION. (1) Misprision of treason: “Every one who knows that any other person has committed high treason, and does not within a reasonable time give information thereof to a judge of assize, or a justice of the peace, is guilty of misprision of treason” (Steph. Cr. (9th ed.) 158. See also Sykes v. Director of public prosecutions [1962] A.C. 528. [Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Fourth Edition, 1973]

The main difference is that if you become aware of a plot to kill the king, then you have to report it and cannot just ignore it.

But if you work at a bank where all of the employees are committing the same felonies of fraud, forgery, and the laundering of proceeds of crime, then there is no legal compulsion to rat each other out.

“Its all very clear to me now.” – Dave Bowman in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

I have contemplated the issue for some time as to what form of government – based solely on observation – do humans live under?

My working hypothesis is that it is “Domination-ism” administered through a system of ‘financial-status-based-apartheid.”

In reality, to comprehend a phenomenon one must take into account both universality and the unique particularity of any situation.

You are referring to syntactic-meaning, and you are spot-on. The English language is considerably more than just multiple-choice-word meaning, but also sentence-structure, grammar, individual-word-meaning, punctuation, and comprehensive internal and external syntax.

And there must be concordance between and among all of the elements. It also helps immensely if it conforms with what is called syllogistic logic – If A then B, and If B then C, then If A then C. The English language, per se, is not solely based on opinion but has in fact a mathematical basis or structure (concordance-of-elements) by which prepositions can be objectively established as either true or false / non sequitur.

No matter what broadly-defined subject-matter that I comprehensively-analyzed over a decade, within the interior-syntax of the words: “privately-owned domestic and international financial system”, every last one of them quickly and obviously reduced to a systematized delusion:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

In plain English, an “insane conclusion” is the interior-syntactic-meaning, and the “false premise” is the exterior-syntactic-element that exposes the fact of the insane conclusion, and which also contributes to an enlarged exterior-syntactic-meaning that encompasses the motive behind the fact of such systematized delusion in any given case – why is it there at all?

Whether convened in criminal-law jurisdiction or civil / commercial / admiralty-law jurisdiction, the ‘admissible-evidence’ or ‘admitted evidence’ defines the interior-syntactic meaning, and everything else is by definition “inadmissible” or “not admitted” is the exterior-syntax that the court cannot consider.

This means in theory, that if a banker were to hold a gun to your head and coerce you into nominally-signing-it, then the only thing a court can consider is: Did the defendant put their mark on the piece of paper / nominal-security? Yes or no. That is what “justice is blind” is all about in admiralty / commercial law – “blind” to any external fact or matter of equity.

Now, at this point, many will react with incredulousness because if such were the case, then surely the court would not allow it. But that’s the point – the court would invoke the legal-doctrine-of-necessity to protect the integrity of the appearance of the court – and refuse to enforce it because if it followed the normal procedure the public would be exposed to the larger external fraud of it.

The inescapable conclusion is that the underlying purpose of the court is to deceive the public.

In 1584 the English entrenched-financial-power made a deal with the Crown and its Parliament, as explained under what came to be known as Heydon’s Case or Heydon’s Law. The law as proclaimed and transcribed into writing would be the sole right of the Crown and Parliament – but the judges were the sole arbitrator of what the words mean – and it was henceforth unlawful to submit any evidence before the court that would tend to embarrass the court.

The result has been a 400-year long on-going work-in-progress with that reality engrained into the DNA of the private system.

An article in the January 1938 edition of Canadian Bar Review, for example, explains the persistence of the interpretation policy 350 years later:

If the court …openly considers the question why the Act was passed, you should know that a positive law debars it from referring to the only known sources which can give a trustworthy answer to that question, vis., Hansard [the official record of Parliament] or the Reports of Royal Commissions: you should then conclude that the court’s reference to “the intent of the Legislature” is a polite notice that it is about to speculate as to what it thinks is the social policy behind the Act. A court’s speculation about the policy of statutes dealing with “lawyer’s law” is very likely to be right : about the policy of social reform statutes, of which it is almost certainly ignorant, and to which it is probably hostile, very likely to be wrong….

…You cannot interpret an Act in the light of its policy without knowing what that policy is: that you cannot discover without referring to all the events which led up to the legislation: but a well-settled rule of law forbids reference to any matters extrinsic to the written words of the Act as printed…What use do the courts make of the…rule today? Once more the answer is that they [the Courts] use it to achieve a desired result,..

– Statute Interpretation In A Nutshell by John Willis, Canadian Bar Review, January 1938

In Canada, the rule was officially abandoned in 1986, when the SCC ratified a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, allowing the admission of external evidence in a civl action, because the trial judge in the case had been compelled to essentially guess at the meaning of safety-regulations in a law regulating the construction of nuclear power plants.

But the larger result in practice was to make it much worse – because the excluded record is too embarrassing and prima facie criminal to even look at. So the legal doctrine of necessity is invoked again to protect the public from the trauma of knowing the facts.

Is that clear?

I tend to approach and view the nominal Epstein client-list issue from a more probative / investigative and structured perspective.

To me, the first issue to be determined is as to whether this phenomenon of adult males being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent females or males is an organic / natural phenomenon, or an artificially-induced phenomenon.

Does it substantively exist at all in any other species of mammals?

Is there a genetic-marker for it?

If so, does the balance of humanity have a right and / or obligation to sterilize such people to ensure that (1) they do not act upon such forces of attraction, and (2) that they do not reproduce if it is in fact hereditary?

And of obvious and critical importance is as to why does the apparent probability of any given man being afflicted with such defect appear to not only increase, but to increase exponentially, with their relative position in the private socio-financial and / or public / governmental control system?

Assume that the condition is directly analogous to that of the King Cheetah. King Cheetahs have square-markings / dots and not round-marking / dots. They cannot be bred, per se, and they are always male. They are created by a recessed-gene that manifests in only 2% of cheetah births. In 2016 there were an estimated 10,000 cheetahs remaining on Earth, of which 200 were Kings.

So if we assume the same with respect to human males and the nominal pedophile phenomenon, then we would expect that 2% of human males are born with the affliction.

But then how to explain the apparent concentration of same at the top of the administrative control structure?

But then again, what if I am on the wrong track or tract entirely?

What if what these people are really after is simply a higher-high? – The release of an ever-higher dose of dopamine into their brains, and that they discover or are led / induced to discover that such acts of (serial) pedophilia can induce the attainment of such higher-highs?

But that would require a near total dis-attachment or disengagement from their victims. Regardless of its duration, the attainment of each higher-high is at the minimum cost of the life-long psyche of their child-victims, and all too often results in suicide, and perhaps more tragically what can be described as suicide on the instalment plan – a slow but relentless slide into depression and substance-abuse that ultimately results in notably premature death.

A normal man or woman cannot bring themselves to make such a bargain.

What we do in life echoes in eternity, and as God is my witness, immediately after such an act, the only conceivable reaction of the perpetrator has to be of at least the same intensity as that of Alec Guinness’ character at the climax of The Bridge on the River Kwai:

“My God! What have I done?”

The material difference is that, as his last living act, he falls on the plunger down-river and pays with his life to make amends by blowing up his damn precious bridge, while the modern pedophile seems to just shrug their shoulders, and slink away to leave their victims to deal with the physical and psychological trauma.

But the perpetrators do not get away scot-free regardless.

The result appears to force a kind of protective-schizophrenia on the perpetrators, where one personality continues to pursue ever-higher-highs, while the other would rather die than be publicly exposed for what they’ve done.

And as they approach the end of their lives, and even if they’ve never read it, they become ever more mindful of the final transition-verse of Christopher Marlow’s epic poem The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus:

Hell claims his right, and with a roaring voice
Says, “Faustus, come; thine hour is almost come!”

The older I get, the more I am convinced that there is no evil, per se, but only rank-stupidity and the eternal shame of having made such seemingly but impossibly-bad choices.

People tend to make things more complicated than they need to be.

The single most determinative factor in English Law is that, by law, it must be written in the English language.

Any statute that contains a nominal “Interpretation” or “Definition” section, under which the substantive meaning of English words are altered, is invalid legislation on its face.

The nominal statute here at issue is not written in English. The English language is considerably more than just word meaning, but also grammar and syntax.

In subsections (2) to (4)— (a) “meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, …

I have a collection of about 50 antiquarian broadly-defined English language dictionaries and encyclopedia sets, and from which I have read some 30,000 pages, and I have never encountered a definition for the word “meeting” that is anything like that provided under the nominal statute.

First, it commits the logical mortal sin of definitions by employing the word allegedly being defined as an essential and material element in the definition itself. Assume here that the word being defined were “blortz” instead of “meeting”, so as to yield by substitution:

“blortz” means a blortz of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted,

The point is that the reader has no idea what the word might mean, unless they already think that they know what the word means.

Second, the people who comprise the broadly-defined legal profession have an interpretation rule that holds that where a definition section uses the word “means”, then what follows is exhaustive of the class. In other words, by employing the word “means”, the legal meaning becomes:

“meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted; and nothing else.

It follows that a meeting of two persons is not a meeting under the statute. It is in the English language, and which Parliament is legally bound to write the laws / statutes, but not under the statute itself.

In fact, the entire nominal statute is a morass of cogno-linguistic fraud and deceit, but the moment one engages in the process of attempting to find some definitive meaning to it, the game is lost.

They always get you at the door – Are you in the game? “Yes”. Then you lose.

It is the fundamentals of humanitarian law: the principle of ‘distinction’ between combatants and non-combatants, and the principle of ‘proportionality’ in weighing military advantage against the endangerment of civilians…

The above is non sequitur of itself, but also the false premise in a larger systematized delusion – a false premise pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion.

The false premise is that the natural state of humanity is being at each other’s throats trying to kill each other (and / or that it can be continued indefinitely).

I wrote the following in about 2015, but it seems to have stood the test of time, and now seems to apply to the current escalation in the form of drones and drone swarms on civilian populations:

I am a very special human.

Long before humans first walked semi-upright out of a cave, we have been obsessed with, and essentially defined by, two things: domination, and punishment. If pressed for a single word, that word would be coercion.

What makes me a very special human is that I am among the very first generation of humans to be faced with the existential reality that that is no longer a viable business model for our species.

Even just natural evolution, in the Darwinian sense, can take us only so far. Beyond that, evolution is an act of will, and not of nature.

If we do not will to change our basic mode of human interaction, away from coercion, then we will perish.

Consider the parallel development of our systems of international dispute resolution as we approach the 100th anniversary of the founding of the League of Nations. How far have we progressed in a century? Not very. If at all.

Now consider the concurrent development of broadly-defined weapons-systems over the same century.

Our ability to kill humans is increasing at a rate that is vastly greater than our ability to control the process of not doing so.

As night follows day, something has to give.

Thanks for that too – it is quite helpful. It had never occurred to me that people might use the earlier term to obfuscate the reality of it.

I do not, however, prefer one over the other and I would agree that most people may not appreciate the term foeticide.

Contrast either, for example, with the choice between “She had an abortion” versus “She paid someone to kill her baby”. I find the term “had an abortion” to be more consistent with your observation of “terminology to de-humanize children prior to birth.”

My point about equity versus law or legal rights is that the living baby exists in the mother’s womb in fact or equity and that reality cannot be affected by law. If it is wrongful to kill the baby, then such cannot be changed by making it legal.

Virtually everything that people perceive as rights are in fact restrictions on what others can legally do to them. When a police officer says “You have the right to remain silent” it means in fact “We are prohibited from forcing you to say anything”.

My larger point was that the terms foeticide and infanticide were always directed at the perpetrator of the crime, such that the concept of the baby having legal rights did not arise. Sorry if I failed to make that clear. Excellent article and much appreciated regardless.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision returned “abortion” back to the States, as it had been for over a century before seven delusional judges nationalized infanticide in 1973.

For centuries the term used in English law and medicine was foeticide – the intentional killing of a foetus. It was an offence and felony under the criminal law, and which recognized the foetus as having the capacity of a being of conscience or being of equity. It was not, and never will be, about the foetus having legal rights.

FOETUS (Lat.) In medical jurisprudence.
An unborn child; an infant in ventre sa mere.

FOETICIDE.
In medical jurisprudence. The act of criminal abortion. 1 Beck, Med.
Jur. 288; Guy, Med. Jur. 133. (Cyclopedic, 1922)

I found this discussion both enlightening and depressing at the same time. The discussion is fair and accurate as far as it goes, but does not deal with an obvious anomaly of the highest order.

First, the three examples to follow are not anecdotal but rather typical of their loan-market-type.

The first is from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website purportedly-advising Canadians on the high-cost of payday-loans (cbc.ca website, Payday Loans: Short-term money at a hefty price. October 4, 2006) (in material part):

How much do payday loans cost?
They are the most expensive legal way to borrow money
.…
Typically, you can expect to pay up to $100 in interest and fees for a $300 payday loan. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada says that amounts to an effective annual interest rate of 435 per cent on a 14-day loan.

but the interest-rate objectively defined by that transaction is just over 180,000% per-annum. It is a fairly simple calculation, and easily verifiable:

=(((1+(100/300))^(365/14))-1)

= 1807.54 or 180,754% per annum.

The part about bank loans and their collateral which I find REALLY objectionable is that the loan money is created out of thin air ie. it didn’t exist until the bank deposited it into the borrowers account.

Hi, and thanks! I agree as far as it goes but you are missing a few critical elements or factors, as per the following:

There is no money

In a world obsessed with money the vast majority of people do not understand the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money. A fiat-money system is by definition a no-money system.

I agree with your comments and conclusion, but you might want to consider the following refinement of the usury concept :

Hi and thanks! The following is from the introduction to an article I have been working on, and which I hope to have posted on my website WEREX.org (World Equity Repository and EXchange) over this coming weekend.

Our human species and civilization continues in the grip of two primary phenomena to which we have proved exceptionally vulnerable. The first, and our basic-building-block, is called a systematized delusion:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

The modus operandi of the oligarch-control-structure and system has long been to (1) sell the public on a false premise, (2) establish a corresponding new systematized delusion, (3) link-it or daisy-chain-it to the ever more firmly-established / existing systematized delusions, and (4) move on to the next one. You cannot see this in the short term – you can only see it by studying history – on the order of about 300 years.

The second is the psychological process popularly referred to as gaslighting, where the target of it is induced to accept ever-increasing non sequiturs and eventual absurdities by slow but relentless incremental steps. Also and more cognitively / accurately described as gradualism.

There are at least a dozen daisy-chained critical subsystems that define today’s private global financial system – all of which qualify as serious systematized delusions – and which have settled into an orchestrated multi-layer feedback-loop that also relentlessly expands by the gaslighting / gradualism process.

There is also an object-based lowest-common-denominator. Each of these processes is designed to both systemically and systematically deplete the working-capital of the masses to ensure their perpetual subservience to the oligarch-control-structure. And they all financially inter-cross-leverage each other, such that the whole is vastly greater than the mere sum of its parts.

Perhaps the most determinative false premise among humans is that those at the top are supremely motivated by greed. They are not. They are motivated by their self-perceived need to dominate for its own sake. Greed is legitimately portrayed as a vice – but it is not unequivocally evil. The point at which greed becomes unequivocally evil is when you want something of value to another – not for its own sake – but solely to deprive the other of it for its own sake.

But none of it is possible in all but the short-run without a critical additional element and that is acquiescence. The corresponding legal principle is called latches, and the oligarch-control-structure has had centuries of experience and practice in fostering and exploiting this most insidious of human failings. “Silence equals consent” is the ratcheting-device that drives the gaslighting / gradualism process ever forward.
___

What the larger system has learned to do very efficiently is to induce and indeed orchestrate all levels of society (consumer, academic, political, media, etc.) into distractive and seemingly endless and vacuous arguments over any given or purported logical process of reasoning – but to never question the relative handful of false premises upon which it is all based and interconnected.

But it is also critical to appreciate an inherent (and ultimately unavoidable) danger in daisy-chaining systematized-delusions, and that is that the entire chain can suffer a cascade-failure from the sudden-defeat or broad public exposure and realization of a single false premise. And both the probability and severity of that danger increase exponentially with each new link in the chain.

The oligarch-control-structure is currently dancing-with-the-devil by way of several compartmentalized and systemized delusions that have reached the limits of the gaslighting process.

The article is about 20 pages long, and represents a condensation of about 10,000 pages of research.

In the meantime, I would start with the link to http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

I will also be posting “Conspiracy Theory my ass” as a much expanded version of the shorter piece on the so-called nominal method.

As a general rule, we tend to think as we act rather than the other way round as a mean to avoid cognitive dissonance; this unfortunate feature is also used against us for sure.

I would agree with that on several levels. As to it being used against us, that too is reaching a crisis point. I often think as I leave the house that out there in the real world is an army of analysts and consultants all being well paid to get inside my head to get me to do what they want me do.

But it is also rather satisfying to turn the tables and analyze the analyzers. In the final analysis their minds are just hollow shells. Thanks for the insight!

Hi and thanks! The particular quote / definition really resonated with me when I first encountered it. Several years on I have yet to encounter a major human system that is not a systematized delusion!

It is very sad with respect to the lawyers, because the law schools seek out “the best and the brightest” and then go about the process of turning their brains into mush. Lots of drug and alcohol abuse among lawyers for that reason.

Hi: Sorry for the delay in responding. For some reason I do not get notifications even though the box is checked.

In any event, with respect to your first question, the closest I have come to it recently was the following (the first paragraph is mine):

Here following is what I now believe, after having first-encountered it in June of 2023, and as quoted in a longer article by Mr. Emanual Pastreich, to be the CIA and US Army Intelligence and Security Command’s explanation of the same, or at least complimentary, process that I have been studying as a language-manipulation-phenomenon for the past 33 years. My larger essay to follow was written before I encountered this direct-hypnosis-based-explanation of it (in material part, emphasis-added):

“Hypnosis is basically a technique which permits acquisition of direct access to the sensory motor cortex and pleasure centers, and lower cerebral (emotional) portions of the right side of the brain following successful disengagement of the stimulus screening function of the left hemisphere of the brain.

The right hemisphere which functions as the noncritical, holistic, nonverbal and pattern-oriented component of the brain, appears to accept what the left hemisphere passes to it without question. Consequently, if the left hemisphere can be distracted either through boredom or through reduction to a soporific, semi-sleep state, external stimuli to include hypnotic suggestions are allowed to pass unchallenged into the right hemisphere where they are accepted and acted on directly.” (FOIA document “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process” June 9, 1983 (US Army Intelligence and Security Command). (CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5).

The scale of this experiment in mass hypnosis to render the citizens of all the world passive, and unable to resist persuasion from authority figures is unprecedented. This process is being undertaken slowly, over months and years, following complex algorithms that are kept secret.

From my own research and experience, the entire global private financial system is one massive orchestration of cogno-linguistic fraud. It’s all about playing our left brains against our right brains.

With respect to your second question, I am not familiar with Mr. Steiner, but again from long experience I think that there is much greater madness in the non-spiritual because it is so easy to get lost in it.

Language is the instrument of my trade, and there must be words adequate to these depravities and corruptions. There must, there must. But the only one I know that matches the task at this point is “No!” Bear with me, please, as I struggle to find others.

I wrote the following about 7 or 8 years ago, but it has well stood the test of time. It was from an introduction to the role of language manipulation as a nexus between the financial manipulators and the broadly-defined legal profession.

1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic. We perceive reality largely by the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The more dominant-reality is that, above a certain base-level of perception and communication, you have to have the words, language, and syntax by which to say something before you can think it. Whosoever controls language – controls the mind.

2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of broadly-defined entrenched-financial-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty-mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional-schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things, and by how things are named for them. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished-capacity that renders them largely-incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels.

3. Their core business-model or modus operandi is called a systematized-delusion:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

More generally, cogno-linguistic manipulation is a form of managed-mental-illness. It works very well in the short term, but it eventually consumes the rational capacity of those who traffic in it. The judges refer to their own multiple personalities as “jurisdictions”.

It all forms a kind of tight little circular-reference argument that allows the control structure to justify virtually anything, while employing the resulting irrationality, per se, to concurrently broadcast policy to the administrative superstructure. The mainstream media does the same thing.

It is like we have been under the dominant influence of a one-trick-pony for several centuries, and it is all now unravelling at an exponential pace.

“The extraordinary technical power, on which the Leviathan relies is inseparable from economic reality. It is therefore a techno-market reality, a power of technique and money that exercises a form of tyranny…”

Every nominal-national government on Earth has a de facto supra-constitution that supersedes all other rules of law and equity – even a nation’s nominal constitution.

It is called, appropriately enough, the de facto doctrine or doctrine of necessity.

The highest principle and prime directive of the de facto doctrine is to maintain the status quo. It is in effect The Global Oligarch Manifesto. As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985:

The de facto doctrine is defined by Judge Albert Constantineau in The De Facto Doctrine (1910), at pp. 3‑4 as follows:
 
 The de facto doctrine is a rule or principle of law which, in the first place, justifies the recognition of the authority of governments established and maintained by persons who have usurped the sovereign authority of the State, and assert themselves by force and arms against the lawful government; secondly, which recognizes the existence of, and protects from collateral attack, public or private bodies corporate, which, though irregularly or illegally organized, yet, under color of law, openly exercise the powers and functions of regularly created bodies; and, thirdly, which imparts validity to the official acts of persons who, under color of right or authority, hold office under the aforementioned governments or bodies, or exercise lawfully existing offices of whatever nature, in which the public or third persons are interested, where the performance of such official acts is for the benefit of the public or third persons, and not for their own personal advantage.
 
That the foundation of the principle is the more fundamental principle of the rule of law is clearly stated by Constantineau in the following passage (at pp. 5‑6):
 
Again, the doctrine is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the law and to preserve peace and order in the community at large, since any other rule would lead to such uncertainty and confusion, as to break up the order and quiet of all civil administration. Indeed, if any individual or body of individuals were permitted, at his or their pleasure, to challenge the authority of and refuse obedience to the government of the state and the numerous functionaries through whom it exercises its various powers, or refuse to recognize municipal bodies and their officers, on the ground of irregular existence or defective titles, insubordination and disorder of the worst kind would be encouraged, which might at any time culminate in anarchy.

No society could exist in fact without such a general rule or provision that allows government to adapt to emergency situations.

But what has happened in fact is that the judges of the Courts have accommodated the assertion that the de facto doctrine also covers the concealment and denial of the fact of it as part of the doctrine itself.

The administration of law in Canada, for example, is so flagrantly criminal – and admitted as such by the judges of the Courts and the nominal government itself – that the only viable explanation is that they are relying upon the de facto doctrine – and that the doctrine itself allows them to hide it and to falsely deny it to the People.

I strongly suspect that most western governments are operating in fact under a deemed secret de facto doctrine – like the Continuity of Government program in the U.S.

I don’t know if it is just coincidence, but from The Iron Heel, by Jack London (Bantam edition, Bantam/Macmillian 1971, pp. 57-8. Originally published January 1907 (The story at this point takes place five years into the future from 1907 but the figures given are accurate):

Ernest proceeded with his attack. He accounted for the existence of the million and a half of revolutionists in the United States by charging the capitalist class with having mismanaged society. He sketched the economic condition of the cave-man and of the savage peoples of today, pointing out that they possessed neither tools nor machines, and possessed only a natural efficiency of one in producing power. Then he traced the development of machinery and social organization so that to-day [1912] the producing power of civilized man was a thousand times greater than that of the savage.

“Five men,” he said, “can produce bread for a thousand. One man can produce cotton cloth for two hundred and fifty people, woollens for three hundred, and boots and shoes for a thousand. One would conclude from this that under a capable management of society modern civilized man would be a great deal better off than the cave-man. But is he? Let us see. In the United States today there are fifteen million people living in poverty; and by poverty is meant that condition in life in which, through lack of food and adequate shelter, the mere standard of working efficiency cannot be maintained. In the United States today, in spite of all your so-called labor legislation, there are three millions of child laborers. In twelve years their numbers have been doubled. And in passing I will ask you managers of society why you did not make public the census figures of 1910? And I will answer for you, that you were afraid. The figures of misery would have precipitated the revolution that even now is gathering.

“But to return to my indictment. If modern man’s producing power is a thousand times greater than that of the cave-man, why then, in the United States today, are there fifteen million people who are not properly sheltered and properly fed? Why then, in the United States today, are there three million child laborers? It is a true indictment. The capitalist class has mismanaged. In the face of the facts that modern man lives more wretchedly than the cave-man, and that his producing power is a thousand times greater than that of the cave-man, no other conclusion is possible than that the capitalist class has mismanaged, that you have mismanaged, my masters, that you have criminally and selfishly mismanaged. And on this count you cannot answer me here to-night, face to face, any more than can your whole class answer the million and a half of revolutionists in the United States. You cannot answer. I challenge you to answer. And furthermore, I dare to say to you now that when I have finished you will not answer. On that point you will be tongue-tied, though you will talk wordily enough about other things.

They will fill the air with millions of words. Will even one candidate, even once, use any of these words: honor, duty, sacrifice, nobility, faithfulness, virtue, modesty, obedience.

With utmost respect, whether obedience is a virtue or a vice is entirely dependent on circumstances. But unconditional obedience is always and regardless malum in se, or inherently evil / wrongful of itself.

Another manifestation of it is that it gives unbounded licence to the party to whom such unconditional obedience is pledged. An unconditional promise is inherently corrosive and corruptive of both the maker of it and the receiver of it.

Swear no oath. Make no unconditional promises. Recognition of unconditionality as inherently evil is a foundational element of broadly-defined English law:

“After this policy has been in force one full year it will be indisputable on any ground whatever, provided the premiums have been promptly paid, and the age of the insured admitted.”

Thinking as I do that it means what it says — and it being admitted that it means what it says — let me discuss for a moment the only answer that is set up in respect to it. That answer is that any contract stipulating whether directly or indirectly that the question of fraud [illegality] shall not be raised, is against public policy and therefore void. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company v. Anctil [1897] S.C.C. [Supreme Court of Canada] Vol. XXVIII p.122.

The Courts expressly recognized and acted-upon same by holding the insurance policy null and void from its inception, because it was an unconditional promise to pay (“indisputable on any ground”) by the insurance company.

But wait! What is the foundational element of the private global financial system?

Answer: The promissory note.

And what is a promissory note?

An unconditional promise to pay.

Bingo.

It is also the single most diabolical device ever contrived by the minds of men.

But the psychology of making it work requires the broadly-defined public to perceive obedience, per se, to be an inherently good and virtuous thing. It then follows that if obedience is a virtuous thing, then unconditional obedience is Nirvana.

Television is mind control through physiological and psychological manipulation:

The more we watch TV, the more we go into alpha brainwave states, the slow and receptive pattern that accepts images and suggestion into consciousness less critically. A state of hypnosis is induced by the alpha frequency, where you are content to just sit and continue watching. Going from the beta to an alpha wave state can affect how we feel, making it pleasurable to induce an alpha wave relaxed state and watching the TV, thereby making it addictive as a habit to “veg” out. Kicking the habit seems to be hard for many people to do. For some reason, they are drawn to spend time and pay attention to the TV.

Very interesting that U.S. Army Intelligence and the CIA seem to be on the same wavelength:

“Hypnosis is basically a technique which permits acquisition of direct access to the sensory motor cortex and pleasure centers, and lower cerebral (emotional) portions of the right side of the brain following successful disengagement of the stimulus screening function of the left hemisphere of the brain.

The right hemisphere which functions as the noncritical, holistic, nonverbal and pattern-oriented component of the brain, appears to accept what the left hemisphere passes to it without question. Consequently, if the left hemisphere can be distracted either through boredom or through reduction to a soporific, semi-sleep state, external stimuli to include hypnotic suggestions are allowed to pass unchallenged into the right hemisphere where they are accepted and acted on directly.” (FOIA document “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process” June 9, 1983 (US Army Intelligence and Security Command). (CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5).
—
The scale of this experiment in mass hypnosis to render the citizens of all the world passive, and unable to resist persuasion from authority figures is unprecedented. This process is being undertaken slowly, over months and years, following complex algorithms that are kept secret. (From How the Super-Rich Destroy Our Minds, by Emanuel Pastreich, September, 2020.)

No, it is not prejudicial in the way that laundry list is, but it is still an expression of opinion, and not an assertion of fact. From one of my own articles:

It works because humans have bicameral brains, and the oligarch-control-system discovered long ago how to play our right-brains, that process opinions and adjectives, against our analytic left-brains that process facts and nouns.

If, for example, I point at a structure across the street and say to you – “There is a building,” then that is a statement or assertion of fact, and which will be processed through your left-brain or left-hemisphere. Alternatively, if I point at the same structure and say to you – “There is a tall building,” then that is a statement or assertion of opinion, and which will be processed through your right-brain or right-hemisphere.

That is why, for example, we are habituated to repeat the mantra “conspiracy theory” and not “theory of conspiracy”. But if you are charged in court, then you are charged with “the offence of conspiracy”, and not “a conspiracy offence”.

The CIA and U.S. Army Intelligence have been working on these cogno-linguistic weapons against the People since at least 1983. As per the following from How the Super-Rich Destroy Our Minds, by Emanuel Pastreich, September, 2020 – the first two paragraphs is the official explanation of process from government, and the third is from EP:

Hypnosis is basically a technique which permits acquisition of direct access to the sensory motor cortex and pleasure centers, and lower cerebral (emotional) portions of the right side of the brain following successful disengagement of the stimulus screening function of the left hemisphere of the brain.

The right hemisphere which functions as the noncritical, holistic, nonverbal and pattern-oriented component of the brain, appears to accept what the left hemisphere passes to it without question. Consequently, if the left hemisphere can be distracted either through boredom or through reduction to a soporific, semi-sleep state, external stimuli to include hypnotic suggestions are allowed to pass unchallenged into the right hemisphere where they are accepted and acted on directly.” (FOIA document “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process” June 9, 1983 (US Army Intelligence and Security Command). (CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5).
___

The scale of this experiment in mass hypnosis to render the citizens of all the world passive, and unable to resist persuasion from authority figures is unprecedented. This process is being undertaken slowly, over months and years, following complex algorithms that are kept secret.

Hope it helps. TPM.

On the other hand, according to The Doubter’s Companion by John Ralston Saul, the definition of a dictionary is:

Dictionary: Opinion arranged alphabetically.

I think that the main objection to the term “laundry list” is that syntactically it converts a statement of assertion of fact (the fact of the list) into a statement or assertion of opinion, by adding the adjective “laundry”.

“list” is a noun, but “laundry list” is an adjectival phrase.

Use of the term laundry list is intended to trivialize the question of guilt by implying that it is so obvious and extensive that no further enquiry need be made. It is prejudicial language, and if a lawyer were to use it in Court, they would likely be reprimanded by the judge.

In this particular case I agree with the author’s assessment and that Floyd had a list, and a long list, of preexisting conditions, but that does not change that flaw of prejudicial language.

And it is also an aborted-metaphor where half of it (“list”) is real / literal, and the other half (“laundry”) is metaphoric. It plays havoc with the human bicameral brain, and which tends to become more acute / irritating with ones level of education.

Thank you for your comment. Plato warned us about you so many centuries ago:

“Know well, then, that worthy and godlike is the zeal with which you rush upon definitions. Apply yourself to it, and practice it, while yet you are a novice – all the more, because it seems useless, and is called trifling by the vulgar : for if you do not, the truth will escape you.” – Plato

My father passed away in 2002 at age 74 after a ten-year battle with dementia. When I last saw and spoke with him during a visit back home in 2001, he was having a good day and was quite lucid.

I asked him about how he was coping with it, and he explained to the effect:

“As long as I can remember that I can’t remember, it is manageable. But it becomes terrifying once you cross a certain point where you can’t remember that you can’t remember.”

Likewise, or by direct analogy, most of the high-administration of the world today is under the control of people who are – and I hate to put it this way, but it is what it is – too stupid to know how stupid they are.

By the way the word left and right means in many languages throughout history Good for the Right, bad for the left. The Latin word for left is sinister, meaning “bad,” “ominous,” “sinister.” The Latin word for right is dexter from which comes our word “dexterity,” meaning “skill” or “adroitness.” The French word for “left” is gauche, meaning “awkward” from which comes the word “gawky.” The French word for right is droit, meaning “good,” “just,” or “proper.” In English “left” comes from the Anglo-Saxon lyft, meaning “weak” or “worthless,” meaning a lack of moral strength. Now the Anglo-Saxon word for “right,” reht (or riht) meant “straight” or “just.” From reht and its Latin cognate rectus we derived the words “correct” and “rectitude.” These words also affect political thinking. That’s why these leftist need to be outlawed. Of course the leftist will try to change their strips when the time comes.

I agree with your position on language. And it is far more pervasive than most realize.

1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic. We perceive reality largely by the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The more dominant-reality is that, above a certain base-level of perception and communication, you have to have the words, language, and syntax by which to say something before you can think it. Whosoever controls language – controls the mind.

2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of broadly-defined entrenched-financial-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty-mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional-schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things, and by how things are named for them. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished-capacity that renders them largely-incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels.

We ignore it at our peril.

Here are the total interest-only amounts that accrue on or per $1 million of damages in 1968, as at 2024 (56 years).

At 10% per annum, for example (bolded below), the balance owing on $1 million from 1968 is currently $206 million plus the original $1 million. So if the Liberty were a $10 million ship in 1968, the current compensation due would be a little over $2 billion.

1% $745,810
2% $2,031,165
3% $4,234,613
4% $7,992,222
5% $14,367,412
6% $25,129,341
7% $43,207,052
8% $73,426,965
9% $123,705,005
10% $206,965,057

The $50 billion “injection,” as The Times calls it to avoid the nonsense of “loan,” is simply more bad money after bad, but there are a couple of things to say about this.

But what does this mean in a world where GAAP is creating a new $60 billion per day in new accrued interest charges that are deemed equity in law (pure virgin as yet un-leveraged earned-equity). That is a new $6 trillion every 100 days (plus another $1 trillion of interest on the ascending balance over the 100 day-period for a total of $7 trillion).

In the mid-90’s (while writing. a book on the history of interest) I wanted to know at what point the aggregate amount of new-interest debt in the world hit the $ 1 billion per day mark. I used private Canadian bank loan assets as at 1968 as a sample-set, and then extrapolated to the rest of the western world. It was only a rough estimate but the result was that around 1970 we hit the $1 billion per day mark.

Fifty-four years later, we are likely at a minimum of $60 billion a day. The official total debt figure is now about $320 trillion globally, and where the official average interest rate of about 3% per annum generates a new $30 billion per day. But that does not include the standard deviation or average variance of the input data, and which can easily double the aggregate amounts (also due to the at least constructive fraud in the amount calculation methodology employed by about 80% of banks worldwide).

Also, never lose sight of the fact that the primary activity of “The 1%” is hiding, concealing, and denying the scope and scale of their otherwise unearned enrichment.

My essential point is that sometime between 1970 and 2024 we passed what is called the exponential-runaway-point for the legal-fiction-virus known as interest.

We ignore the fact of it at our collective peril.

The existential problem with lethal danger that grows exponentially is that if you wait until you actually see it coming, then you’re already dead.

Or it might be a hidden clause in the Insurrection Act of 1807 that allowed Trump to act as president in the background (!), or special ops forces preparing a takeover, or the arrmed forces really on Trump’s side, or…the permutations seem endless.

Virtually all nations / countries in the world have a lowest-common-denominator – or perhaps more precisely a highest-common-denominator. It is called the de facto doctrine and it is in effect any given nation’s prime directive that dominates and overrules all other laws including the nation’s nominal constitution itself.

The highest principle of broadly-defined English Law is what is sometimes referred to as the de facto doctrine or doctrine of necessity. The prime directive or foundational necessity is to maintain the dominance and supremacy of the established and financial-in-fact order, and the Courts have an asserted legal right or capacity to overrule or veto any law (including the Constitution itself) that poses a threat to such dominance (emphasis added, from the S.C.C decision in the Manitoba (Language Rights) Reference Case [1985]) (Also note that the terms “in the first place”, “secondly”, and “thirdly” are used to denote independent contingencies or scenarios. I.e., the courts will so protect even a private criminal financial system regardless of whether the lawful government has been usurped by force of arms):

The de facto doctrine is defined by Judge Albert Constantineau in The De Facto Doctrine (1910), at pp. 3‑4 as follows:
 
The de facto doctrine is a rule or principle of law which, in the first place, justifies the recognition of the authority of governments established and maintained by persons who have usurped the sovereign authority of the State, and assert themselves by force and arms against the lawful government; secondly, which recognizes the existence of, and protects from collateral attack, public or private bodies corporate [e.g., private banks], which, though irregularly or illegally organized [I.e. and e.g., as criminal organizations as defined under the criminal law], yet, under color of law [false pretence of law], openly exercise the powers and functions of regularly created bodies; and, thirdly, which imparts validity to the official acts of persons who, under color of right or authority, hold office under the aforementioned governments or bodies, or exercise lawfully existing offices of whatever nature, in which the public or third persons are interested, where the performance of such official acts is for the benefit of the public or third persons, and not for their own personal advantage.
 
That the foundation of the principle is the more fundamental principle of the rule of law is clearly stated by Constantineau in the following passage (at pp. 5‑6):
 
Again, the doctrine [of necessity] is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the law and to preserve peace and order in the community at large, since any other rule would lead to such uncertainty and confusion, as to break up the order and quiet of all civil administration. Indeed, if any individual or body of individuals were permitted, at his or their pleasure, to challenge the authority of and refuse obedience to the government of the state and the numerous functionaries through whom it exercises its various powers, or refuse to recognize municipal bodies and their officers, on the ground of irregular existence or defective titles, insubordination and disorder of the worst kind would be encouraged, which might at any time culminate in anarchy. [Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721]

In plain English: The prime directive and ultimate Rule of Law for most of the world is that domination by the oligarch-control-system / structure or established-order must continue in perpetuity as a manifestation of God’s will. The words “…the order and quiet of all civil administration” means in practice the systematic transference and harvesting of wealth from the poor to the wealthy by criminal means in fact and in law – and that machine must not be interfered with.

The essence of the de facto doctrine is: “The Law is the Law, except when it’s not”. And “We’ll let you know if and when it becomes important.”

It is likely that the legal doctrine of necessity was, in this respect at least, developed ex post facto to nominally legitimize the attainment by force and conquest of the Throne of England by William of Orange in 1688/89.

The U.S. government, per se, is regardless irrelevant. The de facto government of the U.S. is a dictatorship by the directly appointed members of the Supreme Court, and their prime directive is to maintain the status quo – notwithstanding that it is nearing 100% criminal.

William Shirer wrote of the period circa 1924 – a century ago – in The Collapse of the Third Republic (of France):

The power of a small elite which possessed most of the wealth was greater than the power of the republican government elected by the people, presumably to run the country in the interests of all the citizens. This group was determined to preserve its privileged position and thus its money. In effect, since the triumph of the Republic over President MacMahon there had been a virtual alliance between the possessor class and the Republic, which it manipulated through its control of the press, the financing of political parties, and the handling of its vast funds to influence the fiscal policies of government. The mass of the people might elect a radical Chamber of Deputies, as it had in 1924, with the mandate to enforce economic, financial and social reforms on the country. No matter. The bankers and the businessmen had learned the technique of how in a democratic society to thwart the majority, as the fall of Herriot had demonstrated. (The Collapse of the Third Republic – An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940, by William L. Shirer. Simon and Schuster New York 1969, pp. 156-7).

The more things change….

Hi! Thanks for all that! Very interesting and stimulating.

And here again my apologies for the delay in responding. The electricity has been down here and all of my gadgets ran out of juice – a little taste of how dependant we all are on the basic technology without which our advanced devices do not function.

In any event I am working on a response to some of your comments here and will post asap.

But from a macro-perspective, the most important thing to realize is that the phenomena known as money and banking are only about 20% based on rational economic theory. The other 80% is more properly recognized and classed as psychiatric phenomena.

Anyway, I will post this now as the electricity often comes back on for only a short period after an extended outage and then crashes again. TPM.

One wonders if it would be meaningful to think more in terms of credit potentiality than money supply when reckoning the impact of expected interest payments. As I understand it, revenue from interest income increases enterprise value, which increases the capacity to carry debt. Certainly somewhere in the transaction is usurpation of power, for debt is used to underwrite all manner of mad and predatory claims in market economies.

What you are describing is a feedback-loop, and you are correct.

Real-estate values are the primary sponge that soaks up money / credit supply on behalf of the property-owning class. Business / enterprise assets are probably a close second.

The sine qua non or one essential element of the private nominal banking system is the interminability of financial liabilities. Once a legal debt is created, it tends to persist forever. In a fiat money system no debt is ever paid but only discharged, meaning that it is legally assigned to some other legal entity.

This means that the only way debt-money is destroyed is through bankruptcy of the institutional structure, or nominal taxation. Once it is understood that nominal taxation does not raise any money for government, but is the pure targeted destruction of purchasing power of the class of legal-persons to whom it is directed, the entire rotten system comes into a wonderfully sharp focus.

In a world obsessed with money the vast majority of people do not understand the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money. A fiat-money system is by definition a no-money system.

Everything that people are habituated to think of as money is in fact an intangible-derivative-of money. There are promises-to-pay money, there are orders-to-pay money, there are various kinds of evidence (exchangeable-evidence-of-debt) that one party owes money to another party, and all of the accounts are denominated in money. But there is no money, only evidence-of-tangible-and-intangible-things that serve as money. Even nominal paper-money or currency / legal-tender money is merely or in substance evidence that its issuer (normally a central-bank) owes-money to the holder of it.

In 1978, for example, and in reference to Bank of Canada notes, the Supreme Court was compelled by the facts of the case to observe and take judicial notice that:

“What is said to be an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money is itself money.” (Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1148 at page 1155).

Just as we could have a fully-functional otherwise-duplicate of the existing-system but denominated in unicorn-horns instead of dollars, pounds, euros, yen, rubles and yuan. There are no unicorn-horns in fact, but that does not matter because there doesn’t have to be.

More generally, virtually everything that functions as money is in fact information about money. Money is an idea or intellectual concept that has no mass nor weight nor physical dimensions.

Even gold is not money. Gold is gold. And silver is not money. Silver is silver. That’s the point. Both are vastly superior to serve in lieu of money, but neither is money, per se. Properly identified and classified, an exchange for gold or silver is an equity-exchange or barter-exchange, and not a money / financial transaction at all. The word money is first and foremost an adjective / opinion and not a noun / fact, as in money (financial) asset versus real-capital asset. Much of the private financial system is based on such noun-ification of adjectives and adverbs to falsely portray and present opinions as facts.
…
But if there is no money, then how can banks loan money to borrowers?

Answer: They don’t. The business-in-fact of the nominal private banking system is credit-reinsurance and not money-lending (as per the following from a different work-in-progress):

Not money-lenders
 
Banks are not what you think they are. They are not money-lenders – they are credit-reinsurers, and they are asset-sinks. When you sign and deliver a promissory-note and mortgage you are underwriting and advancing real-estate-secured-credit to the bank.

The bank / banker strips-off and retains the financial and real-estate security as a minimum 100%-premium for itself, and then returns or reinsures unsecured-credit back to you as an unsecured-deposit-credit that does not cost the bank anything material to produce. 

The money / credit for the alleged or pretended-loan does not even exist unless and until you underwrite-it by accepting the liability for it by agreeing that you owe it, normally under the promissory-note that is secured by the mortgage (and whether by separate-instrument or embedded in the nominal-mortgage itself).
 
You then have to add or issue the same amount again in the form of a signed-check / cheque (an order to pay money drawn on the bank, and which upon delivery becomes a financial / money-asset of the bank) to the seller of the real-estate, who has to co-sign-it / endorse-it and deliver it back to the bank as a ratification of the otherwise recoverable-loss of their property and legal-title to the bank in exchange for an unsecured-deposit-credit / unsecured-liability of the bank. Then the bank (merely) agrees that it owes the principal-amount (selling price) to the seller instead of to you.
 
The nominal mortgage is a combination bill-of-sale that transfers all right, title, and interest in the property to the bank (and / or creates a trust in favour of the bank as beneficiary), plus an embedded repurchase-option that allows you to buy the property back from the bank by paying it all of the nominal-money (and discharging all of the other liabilities) required under all of the securities. When a bank forecloses, it is not foreclosing on the house and real-estate, because it already owns the house and real-estate. The foreclosure is of the repurchase-option – sometimes referred to as a right of redemption (from the sin of debt) (and another example of cognitive-dyslexia).
 
The pretended-banker arrives at the transaction with metaphoric empty-pockets, and leaves with all of the financial-securities from the income-pre-qualified lead-underwriter / pretended-borrower in one hand, and the legal-title to the market-value-pre-qualified-real-estate property (and the endorsed-check) from the seller in the other.

From the nominal bankers’ (and its owners’) perspective there is only one material reality, and that is that pre-qualified-real-equity / secured-assets come in, and only unsecured-liabilities go out. They are real-asset-sinks, and they are unsecured-liability-kiters (kiting means to keep (financial) paper in the air). The penultimate in balanced-and-leveraged feedback-loops.

___
My apologies if the above seems somewhat disjoint with respect to your question, but as Carl Sagan said to introduce his circa 1980 series Cosmos: “If you truly want to make an apple pie from scatch, first you have to invent the universe.”

The key to understanding the domestic and international private financial system is that every essential and material aspect of it is a compartmentalized systemized delusion:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914))

The modus operandi of the oligarch-control-structure has long been to (1) sell the public on a false premise, (2) establish a corresponding new systematized delusion, (3) link-it or daisy-chain-it to the ever more firmly-established / existing systematized delusions, and (4) move on to the next one. You cannot see this in the short term – you can only see it by studying history – on the order of about 300 years.

The second is the psychological process referred to as gaslighting, where the target of it is induced to accept ever-increasing non sequiturs and eventual absurdities by slow but relentless incremental steps.

There are at least a dozen daisy-chained critical subsystems that define today’s private global financial system – all of which qualify as serious systematized delusions – and which have settled into an orchestrated multi-layer feedback-loop that relentlessly expands by the gaslighting process.

There is also a lowest-common-denominator. Each of these processes is designed to systemically and systematically deplete the working-capital of the masses to ensure their perpetual subservience to the oligarch-control-structure. Perhaps the most foundational false premise among humans is that those at the top are supremely motivated by greed. They are not. They are motivated by their self-perceived need to dominate for its own sake. Greed is legitimately portrayed as a vice – but it is not unequivocally evil. The point at which greed becomes unequivocally evil is when you want something of value to another – not for its own sake – but to deprive the other of it for its own sake.

But none of it is possible without a critical additional element and that is acquiescence. The corresponding legal principle is called latches, and the oligarch-control-structure has had centuries of practice and experience in fostering and exploiting this most insidious of human failings. “Silence equals consent” is the ratcheting-device that drives the gaslighting process ever forward.
___

What the larger system has learned to do very efficiently is to induce all levels of society (consumer, academic, etc.) into endless vacuous arguments over any given logical process of reasoning – but never to question the false premises upon which it is all based.

Again, my apologies for the disjointedness in some of the above from my cutting and pasting from other material. I will have to give it more thought to more precisely answer your question.

Also please excuse my delay in responding. I am in south east Africa on Central African Time (where it is early morning here), and my internet access is by cell phone that is often a bit chancy.

One last thing, there is a typo in my original comment. The last sentence in the eighth paragraph should read ” and $1,034 ($1,100 – $66) in respect of the sales-taxes” [and not $1,044].

Otherwise, many thanks for your questions. Hope it helps. TPM.

the working and middle classes in America were sacrificed to those decades of corporate greed, as anyone paying attention at the time could discern without difficulty.

Always start with the long-term, so as to cognitively calibrate the thing or phenomenon being examined.

Assume that you are back in the 1950’s and you and your spouse purchase a high quality furniture-suite from a small-business specialty-store, and pay with a cheque / (check) for the $1,000 purchase price. Then on your way out of the store you see a large bouquet of flowers in the window of a flower shop next door and you decide to get them for your new dining room table, and you write a cheque for the $10 purchase price.

A fews weeks later you receive your monthly bank statement along with your cancelled cheques for the period. You would have noted that both of the cancelled cheques from your shopping trip to downtown are included, and that you were charged an additional ten cents each as a cheque processing fee.

Today, some 70 years later, the same scope and quality of furniture suite costs $10,000 and there is now often a sales tax or VAT added to the final nominal sales price. Assume 10% or $1,000. And the flowers now cost $100, plus $10 of sales tax.

But today instead of paying by cheque, you are motivated to run the purchase through your major credit / payment-card account to take advantage of the purported interest-free period to the end of your next statement-period.

You then pay the $11,110 total on your next statement due date so as to nominally avoid any interest charges.

If we stop there, and do a comparative analysis of the transaction sequences for the two periods, we find, first, that in the earlier period the two transactions were processed and completed at a total cost and income to the bank of $0.20 or just under 0.02% of the total transaction sum ($1,010, and which 20 cents translates to 1% of the $10 cheque and .01% of the $1,000 cheque)). Such can be fairly categorized as a coefficient of transactional-administrative-drag on economic exchanges in the economy.

But in the latter / current era, of your $11,110 total payment, the two merchants only receive a combined $9,504 ($10,100 – $606) for the furniture-suite and flowers) and $1,044 ($1,100 – $66) in respect of the sales-taxes / VAT).

The aggregate of the nominal administrative charges goes to $660 to process the same essential exchange. But we also have to divide that by ten to $66 to eliminate the price-inflation factor. But even so the coefficient of drag on economic exchanges has gone from twenty cents to $66 on the same inflation-adjusted core transaction or exchange – a 330-times increase (or 33,000% increase).

That is based on the relative high end of the range (a merchant discount rate of 6%, which is typical for many small-business retail sectors (including also processing equipment rental fees, etc.)).

Of course the most substantive item is the $599.90 increase in the cost / price of processing the payment order for the furniture suite from the earlier $0.10 cheque processing fee to the current $600 nominal administrative fee.

Logically it should go the other way. In the 1950’s they were operating a system of physical paper-handling but had such a volume of orders / cheques processed that they could manage and profit at 10 cents per item.

As a mid-point frame-of reference, in or by 1994 the U.S. Government went to 100% direct-deposit for broadly-defined benefits payments (e.g., Social Security) because the processing costs of doing it electronically had then dropped to four cents per transaction versus a 25 cent cheque processing fee for paper cheques (The Check is not in the Mail article September 1994).

The real and profound change of course is the notion that the order processor is entitled to a percentage rake-off from the throughput. Proportional to the 1950’s scenario the cheque processing fees (at 6%) would have gone from $0.20 to $60.60. It would have been enough at the time to start a civil war.

But 70 years later we have been collectively domesticated or normalized into accepting an inflation-adjusted 30,000%-plus increase in financial transaction costs / fees.

But such normalization is itself premised on one overriding factor, and that is that the card-users and the public generally do not know about it.

The first thing to realize is that the merchants do not even nominally pay any money / fees to the nominal merchant-banks. In exchange for access, a merchant has to agree to give a stipulated percentage price discount to the respective card-users. A typical merchant may have to extend / apply a 3% discount for mc, 4% for visa, and 6% for amex. Applied to our merchant’s $10,000 (nominal / sticker price) furniture suite, then they would have to sell it to us for $9,700, $9,600, and $9,400 respectively, depending on which of the cards we use.

Then at the end of the next statement period when we pay the nominal full balance, our card-issuing bank receives and records a corresponding $30, $40, or $60 interest / credit charge concealed within the total. Our bank then transmits or kicks-back roughly half of the total interest / credit charge to the nominal merchant’s bank (or keeps it all in the case of amex and its closed system). And the separate clearinghouse corporations (e.g., visa / mc international), retain about 5% of the total interest / credit fee).

What this means in practice is that when visa / mc international release their gross fee revenue figures (e.g., a combined $50 billion for 2022), the corresponding gross interest / credit charge revenue received by the aggregate card-issuer-banks and merchant banks is $1 trillion. And, of that, about 10% or $100 billion is a direct rake-off from the aggregate sales-tax revenue that is run through the accounts.

How much damage or mischief could you cause – or corruptive-influence could you buy – throughout the world, with an ongoing slush-fund of $3 billion per day? Quite a bit.

Currently the people who own and operate the industry are systematically skimming $3 billion per day – well over $1 trillion per year – as concealed credit charges on credit / payment card transactions.

And that itself is a double-dip from the same credit that comprises the outstanding balances (about an additional $1.5 billion per day in new interest charges for a total of $4.5 billion per day).

So while masses of people were recently contemplating a purported $10 billion loan by the IMF to Egypt in respect of the situation in Gaza, for example, it is critical to bear in mind that such represents only a three-day rake-off from the masses.

And, at midnight tonight, a minimum new $30 billion will magically come into existence as another day’s interest on the $300 trillion-plus of existing debt. Then tomorrow at midnight, another $30 billion will magically come into existence, plus tomorrow’s interest on the $30 billion that was created today.

While I have not since preformed any extensive analysis of this particular metric, at one point in the 1990’s I had determined that in 1968, when private bank loan assets were an aggregate $32 billion in Canada, that extended globally, in or about 1970 the aggregate USD-equivalent hit the $1 billion per day mark for new interest charges on existing debt.

Today I would estimate that it is close to $60 billion per day worldwide. The official (March 2024) figure of $307 trillion of interest bearing debt worldwide and an average interest rate of 3% per annum yields about $30 billion per day, but that does not include what is called the standard deviation or average variance of the input into the arithmetic average, and which can easily double the real rates (because of the exponential error in the interest-amount calculation methodology).

To make it easy, assume that the actual figure is currently $61 billion per day. That would mean that in the, say, 100 days, that the US administration has contemplated sending another $61 billion to Ukraine, another $6.1 trillion of interest – and therefore money, has been created worldwide by GAAP just as surely as if it were directly coming hot off the printing press.

That’s what is killing the working class. And most everything else for that matter.

It is all really very simple if you know where to look, and I know where to look.

Consider for example the following clause in a General Security Agreement (GSA) from a major transnational financial institution (in material part, emphasis added:):

NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament, including the criminal law]… this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect.

So why would they do that? Why would the bank and its lawyers provide a direct, clear and unambiguous clause that the parties agree to disregard any and all domestic and international laws against the provisions-in-fact of the securities?

The most obvious answer is because the nominal or pretended securities are literally saturated with criminal-law and racketeering violations and provisions.

But to figure that out, an economist or anyone else has to do something really really radical, and that is:

1. READ THE DAMN SECURITIES.
2. ARREST AND PROSECUTE THE BANKERS AND THEIR SOLICITORS FOR FRAUD, FORGERY, AND THE LAUNDERING OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME.

This isn’t freaking rocket science.

For the vast majority of people on Earth, the single most important determinant-in-fact of their quality-of-life is money.

Yet paradoxically, and near inconceivably, most people do not know the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money.

Everything that people are habituated to think of as money is in fact a derivative-of-money. There are promises-to-pay money, there are orders-to-pay money, there are various kinds of evidence (exchangeable-evidence-of-debt) that one party owes money to another party, and all of the accounts are denominated in money. But there is no money.

Just as we could have a fully functional otherwise duplicate of the existing system but denominated in unicorn-horns instead of dollars, euros, yen, rubles and yuan. There are no unicorn-horns in fact, but that does not matter because there doesn’t have to be.

The real problems start when the public is deliberately and systematically induced to believe otherwise, and when law or government-policy provides for it to make a difference depending on who you are.

What is usury?

If your answer is interest, then you are experiencing cognitive-dyslexia.

Usury is the pure exploitation of another’s necessity, and its most substantive and significant manifestation in credit and finance is everything that is not the interest.
 
“A man shall not have interest for his money and a collateral advantage besides for the loan of it…” – Jennings v. Ward [1705] 2 Vern. 520, 18 R.C. 365.
 
“Every benefit taken indirectly by a creditor, for the granting of which no impulsive cause appears but the money lent, will be voided as extorted.”(Principles of equity: Kames, Henry Home, Lord, 1696-1782).

If, for example, a money-lender would agree to loan £100 to the headmaster of a private school with interest at, say, 5% per annum, provided that the headmaster will also admit the money-lender’s son to the school even though he does not otherwise qualify, then that condition-of-access is the usury, while the interest-called-interest is not, even though the interest-called-interest can still itself be characterized as a less-concentrated-form of usury or background-radiation-like-usury).

A promissory-note is more properly and accurately a usury-note, because as a condition of access you must first unconditionally and gratuitously agree that you owe the named amount as “principal” to the bank, plus interest, and that you will pay the bank the same amount again on the named maturity date, all as a constructive or de facto application / entry-fee, before the bank / banker will even consider giving you anything in return.

Signing and delivering the promissory-note / usury-note, and giving-over-possession and legal-ownership of all of the real and financial assets so attached, to the bank, is an act and ritual of submission and subservience, and also the bank’s direct source of funds / secured-credit for the subsequent pretended-loan. It is a variation (and cross-leveraged-extension) of what the ancient Romans called paying-tribute to Caesar. 
 
What then is the difference between or among a promissory-note, a usury-note, and a tribute-note?

The label promissory-note allows the serf to normalize bowing-down before Caesar as a procedural-virtue, so as to perpetuate such servitude as a natural state of being, which in turn avoids other more overt and violent forms of repression and plunder.
 
Forensically, the business marketed to the public as banking-post-1913 (at the latest) has been and remains credit-reinsurance, compounded and leveraged by 100%-plus access-fees / tribute-payments. 

It is not like racketeering. It is racketeering.

…

Not money-lenders
 
Banks are not what you think they are. They are not money-lenders – they are credit-reinsurers, and they are asset-sinks. When you sign and deliver a promissory-note and mortgage you are underwriting and advancing real-estate-secured-credit to the bank.

The bank / banker strips-off and retains the financial and real-estate security as a premium for itself, and then returns or reinsures unsecured-credit back to you as an unsecured-deposit-credit that does not cost the bank anything material to produce. 

The money / credit for the alleged or pretended loan does not even exist unless and until you underwrite it by accepting the liability for it by agreeing that you owe it, normally under the promissory note / usury-note that is secured by the mortgage (and whether by separate-instrument or embedded in the nominal mortgage itself).
 
You then have to add or issue the same amount again in the form of a signed check / cheque (drawn on the bank, and which upon delivery becomes a financial / money asset of the bank)) to the seller of the real estate, who has to co-sign / endorse it and deliver it back to the bank as a ratification of the otherwise recoverable-loss of their property and legal-title to the bank in exchange for an unsecured deposit credit. Then the bank agrees that it owes the principal amount (selling price) to the seller instead of to you.
 
The nominal mortgage is a combination bill-of-sale that transfers all right, title, and interest in the property to the bank, plus an embedded repurchase-option that allows you to buy the property back from the bank by paying it all of the money (discharging all of the liabilities) required under all of the securities. When a bank forecloses it is not foreclosing on the house, because it already owns the house. The foreclosure is of the repurchase-option – sometimes referred to as a right of redemption (and another example of cognitive-dyslexia).
 
The pretended-banker arrives at the transaction with metaphoric empty-pockets, and leaves with all of the financial securities from the income-pre-qualified lead-underwriter / pretended-borrower in one hand, and the legal-title to the market-value-pre-qualified-real-estate property (and the endorsed check) from the seller in the other.
 
From the nominal bankers’ perspective there is only one material reality, and that is that pre-qualified-real-equity / secured-assets come in, and only unsecured-liabilities go out. They are real-asset-sinks, and they are unsecured-liability-kiters. The penultimate in balanced-and-leveraged feedback-loops.

___

See: http://werex.org/a-general-theory-of-financial-relativity/ for a detailed exposition.

The following excerpt [Reason #2, below] is directly on point. The antecedent “smoking gun” is an 1848 decision of the House of Lords (emphasis added):

Foley v Hill and Others 1848

Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into a banker’s is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.

So which is it? By what right is a banker entitled to ownership of a depositor’s money? Why does the Court / judge(s) state clearly that such money becomes owned by the banker to do with as he pleases, while later stating in the same decision – that the money is “to all intents and purposes” the money of the banker?

The reason is that the judges know intuitively that if the money becomes the legal property of the banker, then the law behind it becomes a general law of apartheid and a fraud against equity.

Apartheid occurs when the substantive purpose of a law is to maintain one class of people or persons subservient or superior to others for its own sake

Imagine the often decade-long process of taking the case all the way to the House of Lords to answer one simple question, only to be told in express terms:

Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker….The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker

Prima facie irrationality / non sequitur reasoning is how the appointed judiciary broadcasts “policy” to its broadly-defined administrative superstructure.

Here is the broader issue and phenomenon:

[Reason #2]. The Deposit function (excerpt from “My Top 7 reasons why All of this is unreal – Reason #2”)

Assume, for the sake of exposition and argument, that some force, divine or otherwise, makes me the winner of $1 billion in cash in a super-multi-state powerball-type lottery. That $1 billion would bestow upon me some quantifiable and very substantial socioeconomic power.

By whatever means, fate will have selected me for such power, and about 100 million people would have each paid an average of at least $10 in cash buying tickets to make it happen.

Also further assume, just to keep track of it, that the typical / average lottery-ticket-buyer earns $14 per hour, and nets $10 after nominal taxes, such that the $1 billion jackpot represents the product of an aggregate 100 million hours of taxable / tax-paid labour already performed (plus whatever percentage the government keeps from total ticket sales[6]).

But the cash would be mine regardless and I would own it in fact (possession) and in law.

Yet the next day, if and when I deposit the cash in a private bank, the cash henceforth belongs in fact and in law to the bank, and I (henceforth) have an unsecured liability of the bank (an unsecured deposit credit) that I own and which I can trade with or assign to others (by cheque / check), but which did not cost the bank anything of substance to produce.

Now the private bank also has $1 billion of new socioeconomic power by my decision to so favour it – a systemic gift of the equity and financial product of 100 million hours of labour already performed.

Now apply the same process to the (say) $5 trillion-plus of earnings from new broadly-defined labour services annually in the U.S. economy.

Assume that you work for a year to earn a cash payment of $100,000 in exchange for your labour and other skills and talents that others find useful in that amount. You too will have earned a certain amount of socioeconomic power.

But the instant you deposit the money into a bank account, it is no longer your legal or actual money, and you have unwittingly made the private bank an equal partner in the product of your year’s labour. Same with cheques / checks (and anything that is deposited) – the bank literally and legally owns your paycheque the instant you deposit it.

The same goes for all the illegal-vice-and-drug-money globally. Even if the drug dealers, etc., could obtain every last coin and banknote currency on Earth (in normal circulation)[7], there is still only about the USD-equivalent of $1 trillion, or about a one-year supply for the world’s broadly-defined vice-and-substance-abuse industries. So if it has been going on for 40-plus-years-in-fact, then you know with certainty that virtually every last dollar of such vice-and-drug-money is being laundered-in-fact (converted to deposit balances / credits) through private banks. It can’t go anywhere else. They are partners-in-theory, and they are partners-in-fact.

Then if and when you participate in the financial markets, you find that your local bank, as with virtually all banks individually and in the aggregate, is not just a scorekeeper, but an active participant on the economic and financial playing field. So even if you beat it, you give your gain back to it when you deposit it. When your opponent scores a point, it scores a point. When you score a point, your point is forfeit to your opponent, but you get a different kind of point as a consolation, so it is kind of alright.

And since at least my great-great-great-grandfather’s time, our global army of financial and economic analysts, with more troops worldwide than Napoleon and Wellington combined at Waterloo, cannot figure out that unearned and unjust conveyance of rights of property in money itself, via deposits and the custom and practice of private bankers, is a multi-hundred-trillion-dollar annual business of itself, and a defining reality of our entire system. It has just never occurred to anyone that it might be important?

Just as the words “application fee” or “loan fee” or “commitment fee” excite a different area of your brain, than do the words “Cross-leveraged-double-counting-fee” or “True-principal-amount and real-interest-rate obfuscation and concealment fee” or “Accounting-fraud concealment fee”, so too does the word “deposit” evoke a very different reality than the more conceptually accurate “gratuitous-wealth-transfer”. As in: “Hi Bob, I just got my paycheque, and I am on my way to gratuitously assign the legal right of property in my earnings to the bank. I’ll meet you later for pizza.”

Since the founding of the privately-owned Bank of England, for that matter; for 323 years our international army of bloodhound economists have failed to grasp the significance of this one all-encompassing and game-defining rule.

Now let’s see, why would an economist concern themselves with something as arcane as rights of property in money itself, in a global system that processes $98 of financial / money transactions for every $2 of actual GDP [as at 2016]? They witness $3 quadrillion of financial transactions annually to support global GDP of $60 trillion (2%) and, with a few notable exceptions, these economic analysts can’t think of a single reason why rights of property in the $3 quadrillion might have some effect on human socioeconomic relationships?[8]

Assuming that there are about 7,000 substantive private deposit-taking institutions globally, then there would be one such special-player per million human players (labour units). Assume also that each special player is substantially and beneficially owned and / or controlled by one vested-oligarch-family-unit, with the most senior (and largest by far) units having been in place for over 300 years.

In this game, all seven billion human players perform labour each day for wages and 90% of them, by amounts, deposit those wages into deposit (gratuitous-wealth-transfer) accounts at one of the 7,000 special-players / family-units, at which point the wages become the legal and actual property of the special-players / families. The special players call their special advantage a level playing field and which is their inherent right by the longstanding custom and practice of private bankers.

And for 323 years our inter-generational global army of economists cannot figure out “What’s wrong with this game?”

Computer! End program!

The full Top Seven Reasons piece [since revised and renamed “A General Theory of Financial Relativity] is at: http://werex.org/a-general-theory-of-financial-relativity/

The most essential point is that the issue is not an economic issue – it is a psychiatric issue. Both the lawyers / judges and the bankers are certifiably insane by existing legal, medical and psychiatric standards, and we allow them to continue at our existential peril.

Yes of course.

The following is the Introduction to my essay “The Normalization of Fraud and Forgery” at http://werex.org/the-normalization-of-fraud-and-forgery/:

Introduction

For over 2000 years, since at least pre-ancient-Roman times, the balance of humanity has proved unable to protect itself from the multi-faceted fraud in the following form of terms from a banker or other nominal creditor:

Condition 1: I will loan you $100,000 at 10% per annum, provided that you agree to give me a security claiming that I have loaned you $200,000 at 5%.

More generally, “I will loan you a certain amount at a certain rate of interest, provided that you agree to falsify the security to claim that I have loaned you a greater amount, and at a lower rate, than in fact.”

It is much more basic and primeval than that. Consider the following proposition:

I will loan you $100,000 at 6% per annum, provided that you agree to give me a security stating that I have loaned you $105,000 at 5%, plus an undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement for a $5,000 kick-back to me from the nominal proceeds.

That form of financial agreement has been the foundation of the private financial system for over 300 years.

There are two material kinds of people in the world. They are [1] people like me who can see the naked criminality of it, and its massive and relentless cross-leveraged channeling of unearned wealth to the possessor class; and [2] people who are utterly incapable of it.

As Arlo Guthrie sang back in the 1960’s” “Which side are you on, boy; which side are you on?”

For the vast majority of people, the single most important determinant-in-fact of their quality-of-life is money – or so they believe.

Yet paradoxically, and near inconceivably, most people do not know the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money.

Everything that people are habituated to think of as money is in fact a derivative-of money. There are promises-to-pay money, there are orders-to-pay money, there are various kinds of evidence (exchangeable-evidence-of-debt) that one party owes money to another party, and all of the accounts are denominated in money. But there is no money.

Just as we could have a fully functional otherwise duplicate of the existing system but denominated in unicorn-horns instead of dollars, euros, yen, rubles and yuan. There are no unicorn-horns in fact, but that does not matter because there doesn’t have to be.

The real problems start when the public is deliberately and systematically induced to believe otherwise, and when law or government-policy provides for it to make a difference depending on who you are.

Money is an intangible. It is an idea or a concept. It has neither mass nor weight nor dimensions, and you can’t take a picture of it.

Money is not a noun / fact – it is an adjective / opinion.

Yet virtually every nominal economist oscillates between the tangible and the intangible to an extent that would make a genuine psychiatrist wet their pants in anticipation.

Gold is not money. It is gold. Silver is not money. It is silver.

And it is not a 5% reserve ratio – it is a 95% coefficient-of-fraud.

Banks are not in the money-lending business – they are in the credit-reinsurance business.

http://werex.org/usury-as-cognitive-dyslexia/

Sorry about the delay – I keep thinking that the forward response to my email button is going to work.

Regardless, and with no disrespect, your answer is not even in the ballpark. With respect to the rate of interest, an equal amount paid sooner is a greater rate by definition and in fact.

The rate of interest defined by the transaction ($335 today for $400 in 10 days) is 64,622% per annum.

That is the rate that the micro-lender / payday-loaner will report to its shareholders, and the real rate of interest. It is what determines whether they get a Ford versus a Ferrari as part of their bonus package.

But the same management will tell the customer / borrower that the rate of interest is 708% per annum.

If and when challenged, they will avoid the question of the real rate, and claim that they are required by law to tell the customer that it is 708% per annum. That law is the 1968 federal Financial Consumer Protection / Truth-In-Lending Act.

The same ridiculous and wholly-bogus methodology has been at-least officially prohibited and banned as civil and criminal fraud in the U.K. since 1971 on the grounds that it is “false and seriously misleading”, which is itself the understatement of the century.

It is, in a word, impossible. But it is what it is.

The high-school-level-math version is at http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

The university-level version is at http://werex.org/the-psy-op-goes-on/

___

The spreadsheet formula is:

=(((1+(335/400))^(365/10))-1)

= 646.22 or 64,622% per annum

P.S. The government’s official position is that the math is too complicated for an average American to understand, and that the class of people who have to pay interest at such rates would tend to get agitated, and possibly violent, if they were told the real rate. Therefore they substitute a “nominal” interest rate which is in fact a Non-exclusive convergent logarithmic derivative of the interest rate, instead of the real / actual rate.

Thanks. Tim.

Start with a basic test of competence.

Under the terms of a typical micro-loan or payday-loan, the borrower receives $335 today, in exchange for an obligation to pay $400 in ten days.

What is the rate of interest so defined and expressed as a rate per annum?

Based on my reading of the article and the comments, neither the authors nor any of the commentators are capable of doing the math, notwithstanding that such used to be required for graduation from high school.

Any takers?

Hi Mefobills: I agree with your comment about it being “too much for the normies”.

But it is necessary for someone to go through the complexity of it to discover that it is not complicated at all. It is in fact too simple for most people to understand at first.

Here is the most important thing (from the intro to Reverse the Polarity (http://werex.org/reverse-the-polarity/ ]

Reversing Polarity from Debt to Equity

To recap (from the first two interviews), for the vast majority of people on Earth, the single most important determinant-in-fact of their quality-of-life is money.

Yet paradoxically, and near inconceivably, most people do not know the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money.

Everything that people are habituated to think of as money is in fact a derivative of money. There are promises-to-pay money, there are orders-to-pay money, there are various kinds of evidence (exchangeable-evidence-of-debt) that one party owes money to another party, and all of the accounts are denominated in money. But there is no money.

Just as we could have a fully functional otherwise duplicate of the existing system but denominated in unicorn-horns instead of dollars, euros, yen, rubles and yuan. There are no unicorn-horns in fact, but that does not matter because there doesn’t have to be.

The real problems start when the public is deliberately and systematically induced to believe otherwise, and when law or government-policy provides for it to make a difference depending on who you are.

___

Once that settles in, the rest is easy, as per A General Theory of Financial Relativity (http://werex.org/a-general-theory-of-financial-relativity/ ]

We just have to keep educating people until they get it. It will reach a certain threshold – and then virtually everyone will suddenly get it – including the bankers themselves.

And thanks for the historical information – very interesting. Tim / TPM

Hi Joe: I have Interest, Courts, and the Law as a pdf file that I will upload to the werex.org site sometime this week. I had a technical disaster in March when my computer and my cell phone got wiped out on the same day, and I was using each as the back-up for the other.

I’ve only just been able to get back in as administrator and I am still learning the ropes (I am not a programmer and binary makes my brain hurt!). In the meantime, here is the link to the full Usury as Cognitive Dyslexia article (which I just posted this afternoon):

http://werex.org/usury-as-cognitive-dyslexia/

Also, my apologies for the delay in responding but the responses don’t seem to be forwarding to my email so (as I have just discovered) I have to come back and manually check on this site.

I am working with my server in SA to get more space so that I can convert all of the articles to pdf’s for download. It is just a slow process due to the ten hour time difference (and my own lack of experience, and the information loss from the loss of my computer and phone).

If you have the time to read a 16-page super-condensed quasi-summary (of Interest, Courts and the Law), it is under:

http://werex.org/a-general-theory-of-financial-relativity/

Our current system is a bastardized rendition of the business of “bottomry” – a combination of investment and insurance.

Thanks for your interest! Tim / TPM

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
You can give a man the answer, but you can’t make him think.

___

What follows is a relatively very brief exposition and explanation of our current predicament vis a vis the nominal concepts of economics, finance, and banking.

Also, I have a personal connection of sorts to both of these gentlemen.

It all started in April of 1990 when I won my court case against the credit card division of a major Canadian department store chain (Eaton’s) over its interest calculation methodology. I took the decision to a reporter at the Edmonton Journal, and the next day my picture and story appeared on the front-page of the business section holding up the Court’s decision:

Court win could spur claims worth billions
City man defeats Eaton’s in interest-rate case

The lowest common denominator is called a “systematized delusion.”:

“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

An obvious and indeed glaring example is in the photograph in the article of “Jack Ruby” shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. If you look at the mug shots of Jack Ruby taken at the police station immediately after his arrest: https://www.amazon.com/Photo-Dallas-County-Fatally-Harvey/dp/B06WGVDCYH

and then look at the back hair-line of the shooter in the famous photo in the article, then it becomes abundantly obvious that it is not the same man.

And once that “spell” is broken, then everything about the famous photo looks ever-more staged and contrived, from the look on Oswalds’s face, to the fact that his forearm is directly in the path of the gun barrel at the supposed instant the shot is fired.

Yet the official story and what “everyone knows” has persisted for almost 60 years.

Our larger reality is nothing more than an ever-growing portfolio of daisy-chained and orchestrated systematized-delusions.

The moment the public starts questioning the obviously false premises – what “everyone knows”, the whole thing falls apart.

The numbers are almost unbelievable but I think that in order to balance all of the cross-leveraged-super-fraud in the financial markets, they are going to have to jack-up the merchant-fee-rates to circa 20%.

But that simply cannot be done if there is any alternative – and that is the primary reason for getting rid of cash.

There is no money – only derivatives of money. Banks are not in the money-lending business – they are in the credit-reinsurance business. And what is the inured peril?

Answer: That the party holding the bank’s liability to pay cash will demand conversion from the bank.

Solution: Eliminate the insured peril by getting rid of it. It is the same in effect as neutralizing all life-insurance policies by making it illegal to make a claim.

Free speech means that you are free to believe and regurgitate – or else – whatever absurdity you are spoon-fed by the controller-class.

Here a Toronto restaurant owner had put display cards on his tables revealing the various / different price discounts that he had to give to Visa, MC, and Amex, etc. card-users to conceal the concealed-credit-charges from the card-user:

American Express is making an example of a local restauranteur who displays the charge card’s rates, [by revoking its agency status or licence to accept Amex Cards], …..the charge card firm counters that it will take action against any restaurant that accepts American Express but directly or indirectly discourages customers from using it….. Fabian Siebert, proprietor of Marcel’s Bistro and president of the Toronto Culinary Purchasers Society, chastised American Express for its actions against La Bodega: “They’re just picking on one (restaurant) to make an example in hopes everyone else will just shut up,” Siebert said….. American Express spokesperson Ivan Shaffer said the company was simply protecting the rights of its card members…..Amex’s administrative fees are higher because the firm doesn’t make any money through interest charges [!!!] as does credit companies like Visa, Shaffer added….. [All card-issuers are required to treat the fees internally as interest charges received from card-users and not merchants. If the card-user does not pay, then the card-issuer never receives the “Merchant” fee, and that reality of the credit business cannot be avoided by a label.] (Toronto Star, January 15, 1992)

Either Mr. Shaffer has no clue about what his employer actually does for a living – or else he is a professional and / or pathological liar. Inquiring minds want to know.

What is going on in Canada is far more serious and global-based than most as yet appreciate.

The links below are to three essays that will take about an hour in total to read. It is well worth the time to get a quick tutorial on what is really happening in Canada. All of the various arms of government are behaving more and more like cornered animals, because that is exactly what they are, and it’s entirely of their own doing.

This all started 40 years ago when the Crown in right of Canada revived the illegal and egregiously wrongful practice of giving special permission or Dispensation / Non Obstante to its friends to violate the law – and then they extended it into the criminal law realm so that Canadian banks could ignore the then new domestic and international anti-money-laundering laws. The bankers told the government it was necessary due to a near meaningless and merely potential technicality – and then went on the greatest looting spree in the history of the world.

That’s why all the other bankers hate the Canadian bankers – they get away with murder in Canada. But nobody expected them to go so overboard as to expose the naked simplicity of the whole global scam – and the historically-concealed identity of the entity behind it all.

It isn’t just that the Canadian system won’t bear close scrutiny – it won’t bear any scrutiny. They were given enough rope – and they have well and truly hanged themselves.

The most comprehension-friendly and efficient order to read is:

[1] A General Theory of Financial Relativity
[2] What happened to the $10 Trillion?
[3] Praying for a miracle

But if you only have time for one, then Praying for a miracle is best.

There is no global financial problem – only a trail of naked racketeering that has finally caught up with the controller-class.

The global nominal financial system is not an economic phenomenon, and it is not a financial phenomenon, or any combination thereof. The global nominal financial system is 100% a psychiatric phenomenon.

http://werex.org/a-general-theory-of-financial-relativity/

http://werex.org/what-happened-to-the-10-trillion/

http://werex.org/praying-for-a-miracle/

As always, hope it helps. Tim.

I certainly agree with your comment and position, but probably for rather different reasons. You are right, but it is wholly unnecessary to go that far.

For the vast majority of people on Earth, the single most important determinant-in-fact of their quality-of-life is money.

Yet paradoxically, and near inconceivably, most people do not know the first and most important thing about money, and that is that there is no money.

Everything that people are habituated to think of as money is in fact a derivative-of money. There are promises-to-pay money, there are orders-to-pay money, there are various kinds of evidence (exchangeable-evidence-of-debt) that one party owes money to another party, and all of the accounts are denominated in money. But there is no money.

Just as we could have a fully functional otherwise duplicate of the existing system but denominated in unicorn-horns instead of dollars, euros, yen, rubles and yuan. There are no unicorn-horns in fact, but that does not matter because there doesn’t have to be.

More generally, the phenomenon that we are habituated to describe as money is an intangible thing – a notion or an idea – and not a tangible thing. It has no mass nor weight nor dimensions.

Here following is an introduction as to why it makes such a monumental difference.

Hi: Thanks for that – quite interesting.

I have spoken in the past with several financial people in Europe, and they absolutely despise Canadian bankers because Canadian bankers get away with murder in their domestic environment, and tend to sneer at their European counterparts who have some modicum of meaningful regulation.

Basically the owners of the pretended banking system (credit-reinsurance-in-fact) in Canada control the Parliament, the Government, and the courts and they do whatever they please and don’t give a rat’s ass about law, equity or policy.

But that is in fact the global system’s Achilles heel. Canadians are so docile and non confrontational that they have inadvertently lured the bankers into crossing the line into full-on racketeering.

We have a true quantum-financial-system whose mascot is Schroedinger’s Cat – it’s all legal, lawful and equitable – as long as no one competent actually reads the securities!

Thanks! And much appreciated!

Normally the only people who read my essays are lawyers, bankers and judges, and they keep threatening to have my mind destroyed by way of a drug-based psychiatric assessment if I don’t keep my bleeping mouth shut about it.

I also forgot to mention that, after deposing the Crown-in-right-of-Canada, the former bank-lawyers on the Ontario Court of Appeal tied up the loose-ends by laying down a brand-new standard for dealing with criminal-contracts in Canada. Henceforth (post 1990) whether a financial security that is offensive to the criminal law remains binding upon the pretended-debtor / creditor-in-fact depends upon the former bank-lawyers’ personal opinion of (wait – for – it):

The serious consequences of invalidating the [criminal] contract, the social utility of those consequences, and a determination of the class of persons for whom the [criminal] prohibition was enacted…

How’s that for foreboding – makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

One thing though – you referred to my comment as an “in depth compendium” while in fact it took me some doing to make it that short and direct. A much more comprehensive essay is at

http://werex.org/the-normalization-of-fraud-and-forgery/

Also, in 1978 as per your comment, the most significant fraud was being orchestrated under what the bankers euphemistically refer to as the “nominal” method of interest calculation. A high-school-level explanation is at:

http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

and a university-education-level explanation is at:

http://werex.org/the-psy-op-goes-on/

Thanks again, and hang in there! It’s been at least a 300-year run, but the system is in fact in its death throes. All good things have to come to an end. Tim.

…the classic case of anarcho-tyranny and the selective rule of law…

In an equally classic case of misdirection, in 1981 the government / Crown-in-right-of-Canada unlawfully and illegally revived the long-outlawed and criminal practice of non obstante or the giving of permission to friends of the Crown to violate the (civil) law, and then extended it into the criminal-law-realm so that its banker friends would be able to systematically violate the then (soon to be) new anti-money-laundering / criminal-interest-rate law under the Criminal Code:

Senator Buckwold: Then….the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for [money-laundering / receiving or converting interest-in-advance]

Mr. Wong…theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this section is unusual, in that it requires the consent of the Attorney General before [criminal] prosecutions are initiated, thus preventing the application of the section to [criminal] commercial practices to which it was not intended [by the bankers and other controllers of the money / credit system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion. (Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce) (SSCBTC) transcripts; 4-11-1980 [November 4, 1980], 24:28)

For the subsequent ten years the system in Canada oscillated like a drunk on a bicycle as the directly-appointed judges / former-bank-lawyers tried to contain the damage.

Then in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada fixed the problem by unanimously ruling that criminal / racketeering offences by financial corporations are not illegal. Problem fixed.

Thirty-some years after that much of Canada’s vast resource wealth has been transferred to the money-power for nothing. Here is a brief summary of what happened, titled:

What happened to the $10 Trillion?

Once again, RamZPaul does a good job explaining the fact of the matter:
http://www.ramzpaul.com/2011/03/tale-of-two-earthquakes.html

What we need is a new 9/11 commission, and that's just for starters.

The link I posted earlier was truncated and rendered incorrect; I'll post the link again without the "http://www." portion so that the link fits entirely on one line.

salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/14/jews_iraq

sabril,

The article is quite short. It's from 2002, so it doesn't even get into the "Save Darfur" misdirection campaign etc. but is itself a useful summary of pre-War attitudes within said community.

I'm skeptical that American Jews as a group are trying to drag the US into a war with Iraq or Iran. In fact, I would be willing to bet a few dollars that American Jews oppose the Iraq war in higher percentages than American Gentiles.

Here's an article by Michelle Goldberg in Salon from 2002 titled Why American Jewish groups support war with Iraq. I recommend reading the whole thing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/14/jews_iraq