Category: This is not our economy

Posted on

What Exactly Do Our Taxes Pay For?

Watch the average politician talk about the necessity for taxation on the tv and there’ll be lots of hand-wringing and talk of schools and hospitals… nothing about where an increasing amountof it really goes, paying back non-existent ‘loans’ from banks that are really just accounting entries for money they never had in the first place. There’s so much that the average punter will never see or hear discussed or read about in the mainstream media, much of the point of which seems to be no more than misdirection these days. Where would we be without the internet?

BB

Posted on

The BNP Economics Policy

The BNP’s Larry Nunn is probably better equipped to articulately explain the BNP’s economics policy (which I understand involves reintroducing full reserve banking and dumping the fractional reserve banking we are now saddled with) than Nick Griffin ever will be. I doubt we’ll be seeing Larry on the telly for precisely that reason. Some elements of banking simply aren’t discussed in the media; not in print, not on air. It’s at least arguable that the whole point of having a prominent BNP figure on a national tv show and then not letting him get a word in about actual BNP policies was to stop him drawing any attention to the existing banking system. It’s a taboo subject. In the media you’ll see nothing but the very briefest of mentions of money being created by banks. If that idea ever got out and became more widely understood I suspect it would mean the end of law and order as we’ve known it. Now I’m familiar with the subject I’d have to say rightly so.
Don’t expect to be seeing The Bill Kruse Show anytime soon either!

BB

Posted on

In The Forest – Economics

The Keynes School of economic thinking, Adam Smith, the Austrian School… all these are what I call “In the forest” economics. We’re here in this forest, so we have to reorder things in our best interest.

I say, no we don’t. We shouldn’t even be considering that at all.

We don’t because this would be like hens in a battery farm trying to reorder things so that the battery farm worked in favour of them, not the farmers. It’s like trying to accept something wholly artificial, contrived, designed specifically to serve the needs of those who built it, as somehow being the natural environment for those imprisoned within it. Just tweak it this or that way, they say, and it’ll be ok. More taxes, less taxes. Different taxes. Occasional taxes. Part-time taxes. Tax reliefs. That’ll fix it, say these economics schools, from deep in the forest. Then it’ll work.

I say that’s nonsense. The system wasn’t designed to work in favour of the people in it, but in favour of the people who run it. We suffer an imposed culture and an imposed econom model. They aren’t ours. They didn’t naturally develop here. They were imposed.

The basic societal model is Roman. We first saw it here when – surprise! – the Romans conquered us. We first saw the national currency then too. This was introduced so we could be taxed. It facilitates trade, true, but over and above, handled right it enriches any party having control over the money supply. That used to be the Romans, now it’s the banks.

Effectively, then, we’re now conquered by the banks, who have lately (in historical terms) resurrected the old Roman economic model. Internationally, too, not just here. It doesn’t matter how you tweak and twiddle this arrangement, adding or subtracting this or that tax. The ultimate beneficiaries are still the banks. No matter what we do, we cannot amend the existing system so it works in our favour. We need “out of the forest” economics, then. This isn’t our forest, this isn’t our system. If we’re going to develop something that works in our favour, in favour of we who live in it, we’re going to need to get out of this one completely.

BB