Does Banking Make You Blind?

I not sure I would recommend Max Keiser as evidence, but I think the reading of finance as dominated by organised crime is worth entertaining.  In the episode posted here they get to the question of ‘where is all the securitised money going’, but don’t show us the trail and speculate it’s about a plan to establish new government.  Sometimes, Keiser reminds me of those endless ‘I was probed by aliens’ stories.  Max’s own site is full of get rich quick adverts.

If we are going to become genuinely democratic, something has to be done about international banking.  People of my age may remember references to ‘the gnomes of Zurich’.  What interests me about the line Keiser takes is that it could just be another way of making money and it might be another way of discovering history through thought experiment.

History never made much sense to me as a scientist.  It was my top subject in the first year of secondary school, but I gave it up to go into a maths fast-stream and do a second foreign language.  Even at that point I found myself wondering why it was nearly all about war or voyages of discovery I couldn’t quite see the point of.  The pinnacle of human achievement seemed to concern being good at war and collecting gold from witless savages who needed conversion to Xtianity.  All a bit like playing Monopoly with a get out of jail free card up your sleeve if you were British.

Whilst the trappings of science are now all around, very few of us know much about scientific thinking and methods.  We still think, socially, through Idols. This is sometimes portrayed as a common sense that allows us to see the Earth as flat, but ‘Flat Earth’ was actually an academic theory,  If we try harder in observation, we can actually see the ‘curvature of the Earth’.  What science has demonstrated, over and again, is that commonly created theories like religion, racial superiority and social power-systems are baloney.

WW1 began on 28.7.1914 – though this doesn’t help much to the scientific mind that asks why wars are so prevalent in our history.  In the peace I’ve lived through there have been about 40 wars – probably more if we include ones like Gaddafi’s idiot fracas with Chad and our own fiasco in Northern Ireland.  One can find lots of stuff about ’causes’, mostly about miserable ‘imperialism’.

But what if we could find something on ’cause’ that is somehow more essential to the idea of putting an end to war?  History in the sense taught in schools doesn’t seem to have done much good in this area.  What about the idea that economics and diplomacy are just war by other means – or that some shadowy set of bankers are going blind urging the rest of us into them for their sick purposes?

WW1 brought an end to the then German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman imperialist empires – but imperialism clearly continued with a ‘new’ dominant American emphasis.  What if this ‘imperialism’ has always been less nationalistic than we imagine and has been more about a ‘shadow grouping’ that wants the instabilities war brings for its own reasons – a particularly grim example of ‘divide and rule’?

Most of us don’t think our votes are worth much – the standard protocol I find when I ask is that of comparison with dictatorship and voting being better than that.  I would vote for a work entitlement scheme (for instance), capital punishment and so on – but actually only ever have a choice between parties I don’t want and generally candidates that wouldn’t raise micturation in me if they were on fire.  I would also vote for the end of banking as bankers know it and in favour of primitive, transparent finance and the return of capitalism in which ventures could and would fail if they were crap.

My vote didn’t stop Blair taking us into an illegal war or the farce of Afghanistan, and doesn’t prevent ‘Asian mobbing’ or massive unemployment – and doesn’t stop trash entertainment or give me space free of annoying, noisy people.  Demonstrations against war in London, Paris and Berlin by millions of people didn’t stop WW1 either – and who died in that war – Bankers?  And, of course, ‘the war to end all wars’ wasn’t.

I’m trying not to talk ‘peacenik’ and fell I should say I’m about the last person to think we should disarm.  The world has some people and idiot ideas in it that require us to be defended.  Even with no crime you need some kind of police force to prevent banditry from becoming too easy.  I actually believe strongly that white European tradition has a lot in its favour, though one can find much the same in any culture in part and some more sensible ideas in others.

What if we say to the banksters that we have had enough and they can stick their ball where the sun ain’t shining and we’ll play our own game without them? The hold they have on is is one of organised crime – if we say no to them they will take ‘their’ money and side with someone else, removing their ‘protection’.  Without their masterful plotting dominating the economic landscape, we wouldn’t be able to afford to stay on top in military strength and way ahead on the linked technology.  This last bit and the funding of the ‘American Umbrella’ may be true.

One key element is that no one dares to do the right thing any more.  The banking economy is several times bigger than the real one that grows food, builds shelter, hospitals, schools, roads and provides safe water if you’re lucky.  Masturbation is probably more prevalent than sex involving more than an image of another, and banking is making us blind to the real thing.

The idea of an organised criminality behind our supposedly democratic systems in the West could explain a great deal, including why wealth in our societies is spread much the same as in societies of mice in which most are kept impoverished.  There may be genetic organising material involved that we need to expose in order not to default to it.  Ask yourself what you know of any of this before just dismissing it as ‘conspiracy’ – though I would point out that the woman on Kesier is still alive and didn’t name anyone ‘assassinated’.

Here’s an example of what banks might be reduced to.


4 thoughts on “Does Banking Make You Blind?

  1. Keiser certainly puts another point of view. I’d like to see more back-up on facts. The academic papers you were good enough to let me have are convincing but what’s needed is full scale police investigation.

    • We might wonder why the kind of sums that would make profit clear are not in the public domain. I suspect the equivalent of a massive 888 account for losses and the buying of toxic assets cheap and accounting for them high, including, eventually the 888 losses repackaged. The ratings agencies have obviously been in on it. But I expect it will all look very basic if we can blow it out. The banks must know – otherwise they wouldn’t be so scared of trading with each other as though they were playing the card game ‘hunt the cunt’ as though the deck was stacked with a dozen Queen of Spades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s