"It´s the Interest, Stupid! Why Bankers Rule the World"
It´s the Interest, Stupid! -- Really?! Is that so?!
9 November A.D. 2014
The title for the piece that is forwarded, thus also the subject
line of the email received here, is this: "It´s the Interest,
Stupid! Why Bankers Rule The World"
(See link below.)
Clearly, by changing that subject line for this note, this author
directly challenges that concept, position, and assertion.
It´s not the interest.
Interest plays a part. Yes. But that is in no way "the" reason the
bankers rule the world, if we even adopt the premise that the
bankers do, in fact, rule the world.
Some of these financial article authors are very smart people, when
it comes to certain things. The author of the piece below also
happens to be an attorney and the present president of the Public
But, either she really just doesn´t get it, or she´s part of the
programme to keep the obvious undiscussed.
It´s not the interest.
It´s not the interest.
It´s not the interest.
Yes, even from Scripture we learn that the creditor controls/owns
the debtor, and that it´s better to be neither one, but if one is
going to enter into one of those two rolls, be the creditor, not the
debtor. So, yes, there are powerful legal forces that apply against
the debtor, and yes the debt burden is part of the problem.
That´s not "the" source of the power being exercised by the
international banking cartel (which controls that part of the world
in which we live, yes, but, fortunately not the
We can talk about electronically pre-programmed elections.
We can talk about extortion and threats of murder. (How many
political murders happen every year?)
We can talk about ownership of, thus editorial control over, all
popular "news" sources, whether in print or the electronic type
(internet, radio, tv, etc.).
But all that´s pure cover story, as well.
The interest plays a part, yes, but the interest is something over
which no individual has any direct control; hence, a primary reason
for promoting that as "the" cause is to advance the "programme´s message:" "You have no control."
The pre-programmed voting booths/machines play their part, but, so
far, there´s been no successful lawsuit to get that practice
stopped, and where there is a measure of control where the
individual may seek a judicial remedy, no such remedy has yet
appeared; hence, more of the, "You have no control" message.
Extortion and threats of murder (promoted by the actual events of
murder; S-11, Murrah Building bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the DC
Madame´s case is one coming instantly to mind, and Vince Foster, and
Sec. Brown, and now this ambassador fellow, as just a distant
glimpse at the tip of the iceberg), are expected to be very powerful
control mechanisms. As one reflects on that angle, one tends to
realize, sooner or later, that the entire concept of "representation
of the people" has long since been compromised by dark forces. To
reflect on this angle of things, at all, is to come to the
conclusion, "You have no control."
As for the "main stream media," there´s been information out for
decades as to their back-room agendas and the reality that what they
"report" is in support of the programme´s agenda rather than even
thinking about reporting that which would exactly expose the
programme or its present political shenanigans and the operatives in
that activity as so blatantly anti-America. Why there´s still such
apparent economic support in the marketplace for those plainly
compromised sources of "information" is a very good question. Said
very plainly, since we know they´re lying to us, every hour of every
day, promoting their agenda rather than serving as the "watch dog"
over "government," why are we still supporting it?
Either way on that, as we get the daily dose of
pro-(Nazi-communo-fascist) government propaganda, huge in that
daily/hourly message, which no doubt still regularly includes the
"circus" reports of how this person or that person died in such a
way as to bolster the message, "You have no control," we´re reminded
in direct and subtle ways of the general theme: "You have no
control." You have no control over your life, and you have no
control over the media reminding you daily that you have no control
over your life. With the total "censorship" control over that which
is sent via email or posted to the net, which is triggered when
certain terms appear in the discussion, certain things are not even
allowed circulated via those forms of communications so as to give
students of this issue or that topic or event the benefit of that
perspective, confirming, in yet that additional way, "You have no
So, to say that none of that matters, is of course, to miss
those points. Therefore, one can´t look at this system as say that
"interest" has no cause in the problem. Of course it does.
But, this author is here to confirm the reality that
the interest is in no way "the" cause. Never has been; never will
Part of the problem? Sure. Yes. Of course.
But, "the" problem??!
To say that interest is "the" problem is just one more way to
promote the "You have no control" programme.
The reality is that we have 100% control over that programme. We´ve
simply been threatened and coerced and extorted and otherwise talked
out of using it. There´s all kinds of control, but if we´re
"programmed" in our thinking to accept that there really is no
control, we stop looking for that which is 100% within our control.
(Think "Sun Tsu.")
Why do bankers rule the world?
Before getting to that, and the regular readers of these notes
already know what´s coming, note that the question is basically a
bragging point. From the "banking industry" attorney, who really is
a very smart individual, comes this "message:" "You have no control
-- the bankers rule the world!"
So, before we get into answering the question, we need to realize
that even the question promotes the programme. The question isn´t, "Do
the bankers rule the world?" It´s "Why?" It´s "How did they get to
the position of ruling the world?" Thus, every time one encounters
this line of analysis, one encounters the "programme´s message
"You have no control."
Why do bankers rule the world?
If that´s true, and for practical purposes of those of us in "the
States," as we are still prone to think about it, it is true for all
practical purposes, then there´s one and only one way that could
ever in a million years possibly happen, this side, of course, of
the traditional "bullets, bombs, blades, and blood" activity known
best by the name War, conducted, successfully, in the banks´
names under the banks´ flags, which formal War by
the banks in the banks´ names under
the banks´ flags has not (yet) occurred. That leaves one and only
one mechanism. That mechanism is revealed by understanding that
which seems obvious and simple enough to understand as to how any
bank operates in any marketplace. How does any bank operate in any
marketplace? By agreement. So, if it´s true that the banks rule
the world, and for our practical purposes, that concept is close
enough, for they definitely rule in "our" world here in "the
States," then they got into that position one and only one way:
those ruled by them have agreed to that relationship, commercially,
one agreement at a time.
Why do bankers rule the world?
Because "federal" means "federal."
What does "federal" mean? It doesn´t mean "national," and it most
certainly doesn´t mean "constitutional." If we´re talking about
independent states interacting among themselves, then "federal"
applies. In that context, "federal" means "by compact" or "by
If we´re talking about how a governmental system interacts with
those it purports to exist to "serve," then, again, the term
"federal" may very well apply. In that context, "federal" means "by
Why do bankers rule [our] world?
Because the law, even in "this state," fully recognizes the "right
(not) to contract." Those who agree to be ruled by the bankers will
be. It´s that simple.
So, if we´re looking at the "interest," and if all
we´re looking at is the "interest," then we´ve just jumped over all
the threshold questions and gone way to the end of the line
of activity that involves banking institutions, one institution in
particular. Many will "buy" the notion that interest is "the"
reason, accept that they have "no control" in the matter, and "give
up." This is Sun Tsu in brilliant operation. Those who "give up"
because they actually believe the "programme´s" message of, "You
have no control," have already been defeated.
A "federal" system operates "federally." That means, "by agreement."
But, there´s one more aspect of that to keep firmly in mind:
"choice of law."
If we had a legit system, where "bankers" followed God´s Laws,
because the people didn´t tolerate any alternative, then that which
would circulate generally as Currency would be honest weights and
measures, i.e., gold and silver Coin. The system that circulates
honest weights and measures as the Currency is the system that is
saying, "Our choice of law is the Law of the Land" (for all
commercial activity that is normally conducted on the land, i.e.,
"all" domestic commercial activity).
In the illegitimate systems, where "bankers" are the gods, and who
thereby set the laws, because the people love to deny and defy God,
rebelliously, incessantly, then that which circulates generally as
"currency" is "funny money," i.e., "debt instruments" lent out at
interest. The system that circulates "debt instruments" as its
"currency" is the system that says, "Our choice of law is the Law of
the Sea," even for all commercial activity that would otherwise be
treated under the Law of the Land, i.e., including "all" domestic
Thus, if the bankers rule the world, it´s because they´ve been
"voted in," not collectively, but rather individually, by every
transaction that uses "their" "funny money." With the use of
"their" "funny money" comes the vote for "their" "choice of law."
No one can chose the "choice of law" for someone else. "Choice of
law" is a very individualized decision.
No one can compel the choice of law. Why is it called "choice" of
law? Because, to the genuine amazement of some, it´s a choice!
The "Liberty Dollar" champion, von Nothaus, was correct in one
thing: we do have a choice regarding our medium of exchange. His
counterfeits, though, aren´t "the" answer, because why? Because
What distinguishes his "Liberty Dollar" from generic silver rounds,
which are transacted with and for every day without a hitch? What´s
the difference? The difference is the term and the symbol for
What von Nothaus did, despite very competent advice from very, very
early on in his efforts, was "mix and match" the competing choices
of law. Whether he realizes it or not, what he did was insist on
trying to define, with his coins, the "weight" for the "dollar" and
yet still use that Law of the Land concept for commercial activity
in the "place" called "this state." The "place" called "this state"
is a God-less, constitution-free, maritime commercial zone, and
those who use "funny money" enter "this state" every time they use
that "funny money." How did he keep insisting on trying to define
"dollar" in terms of a weight? He kept associating a weight,
measured in terms of troy ounces of fine silver, with the concept,
label, term, symbol of "dollar." He mixed and matched choices of
law. THAT was/is the problem. "Counterfeit" is simply the
Why was he labeled as a "terrorist?" That gets well into the
systemic understanding of the differences between the "banker´s
world" and God´s world. If von Nothaus is properly, legitimately,
"lawfully" characterized as a "terrorist," then it´ll be because
what he was actually trying to do, even though this author greatly
doubts this thought ever entered into von Nothaus´s mind, was
overthrow the banker´s world and its present "governmental" system.
How do we get there? By understanding the
differences in "choice of law" and what does and doesn´t "mix and
match" between them. Without realizing that a "choice of law" even
exists, a situation in which von Nothaus finds himself in terrific
and plentiful company, he was encouraging people to transact in
"this state" but with "honest weights and measures." See, that can
be viewed as an "act of war." (Going the other way, is as well,
i.e., the sucking out of general circulation of the last vestiges of
honest weights and measures, so as to change the foundational
"choice of law," is an act of war. It´s just not a war conducted by
the traditional "bullets, bombs, blades, and blood" manner or
To avoid that war, we simply have to know the differences well
enough to apply them competently.
In the "place" called "this state," "dollar" is not
defined, and that´s not accidental. The term "money"
is defined. We can find a definition of "money" in
every version of the "Uniform Commercial Code." But "dollar"
is nowhere defined. What that means is that "dollar" is defined on
a per-transaction basis. The parties to each transaction decide
what "dollar" means. And, for so long as "dollar" is not defined as
a weight measured in terms of grains of fine silver, that "dollar"
may be used in "this state" for all (legal) purposes. (Using it for
illegal purposes does nothing but bring the "choice of law"
associated with that medium of exchange in on that transaction.)
Thus, where anyone intends to try to define "dollar" as a weight,
especially a weight measured in terms of silver, one needs to get
approval of the Treasury first, because they´re the only ones
authorized in "this state" to mix and match the two foundational
choices of law. Anyone else who does that is going to get
clobbered, in the very same way that von Nothaus has.
The silver isn´t the problem. The association in one coin
of (A) "dollar," whether by symbol or term, or both as in the case
with the "Liberty Dollar," with (B) a weight measured in terms of
"troy ounce(s) fine silver" is the problem.
If we presume the validity of the presumption in the question, i.e.,
if we presume that the bankers do rule the world (at least that part
of it in which we find ourselves), and if we´re in "the States,"
it´s a valid presumption, practically speaking, then we do well to
ask the question "How?", which is what the banking attorney author
asks in her piece below. How did that happen? It´s a terrific
question, and one that some can´t rest without understanding the
answer. But, bless her brilliant mind, she´s either clueless or
expects her audience to be (or both). The answer is in no way "the
interest." How absurd! "The" answer is this: one transaction at a
time, using "their" "funny money," i.e., by agreeing to the bank´s
(preferred) choice of law.
It´s not the interest; it´s the choice of law.
To use their "funny money" is to vote for their "choice of law." To
use their "credit" system is to use their "funny money," which is to
vote for their "choice of law."
The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law
for that transaction. Thus, in our present situation, a transaction
using "dollars" is a transaction that votes for more
control by the international banking cartel, and a transaction using
anything else, whether troy ounces fine silver or barter or anything
but "dollars," as such, is a transaction that votes for less control
by the international banking cartel.
To "vote out" the banking cartel from this nation´s life,
completely, first there´s got to be a disuse of "dollar" as a
description of the medium of exchange and a disuse of "funny money,"
which is a per transaction decision, and then the term "dollar" has
to be defined, nationally and in each STATE, which
would then stand a chance of again being a State, as a weight
measured in terms of grains of fine silver. Just understand that
it´s economic suicide to define "dollar" as something legit where
99.9% of the marketplace is still addicted to "dollars." Turning
the marketplace into "crime, inc." isn´t a (good) solution. First,
the marketplace must be drained of "dollars." That´s not going to
happen overnight, and it´s not something that will happen by
depending on someone else to do something. Everyone interested has
to commit to that goal and then put that into action every day.
THEN, it´ll be sensible to define the unit of account in terms of a
weight measured in terms of grains of fine silver.
Where the People lead, the "leaders" will follow.
How does that understanding change the message of "You have no
For those who have already given up, it won´t change a thing. It´ll
just give those who have already given up another excuse for having
already given up.
For those who are still interested in making a difference, i.e., for
voting for something, someone, other than stooges bought and paid
for (one way or another) by the international banking cartel, there
are still ways to make that difference, and it´ll start with finding
ways to trade with those small businesses that provide quality goods
and services and who accept honest weights and measures in exchange
for those quality goods and services.
If it´s not enough to realize that honest weights and
measures is what is consistent with God´s Laws (the origin of the
Common Law is Scripture), then maybe a bit more
self-ish and personal view will start to work. Every transaction
using "funny money" is another vote, one for each "dollar," in fact,
in favor of more "interest," more controlled "elections," more
controlled "officeholders" no matter what may be the case before
entering in upon such elected offices, and more of the slide into
tyrannical despotism, with foreigners calling the shots, i.e., being
the tyrannical despot.
There´s nothing special about silver. If one has something else to
trade in barter, that´ll work just fine, as well. Anything but
"funny money" is going to work just fine, so long as the "choice of
law" of the transaction isn´t that of the "place" called "this
state." If the transaction is based, in any way, on "dollars," then
the transaction is also sucked up into the "choice of law" of the
"place" called "this state."
The bankers are most certainly not "in charge" as a
result of their line of work, or the apparent amount of "profit"
generated. It´s not the existence of "funny
money." It´s most certainly not the interest
(alone). It´s the choice of law that is associated with
each and every transaction that uses their
"funny money." The "default" "choice of law" for everything in "the
States" right now is the banker´s choice of law. They got there by
taking over the medium of exchange. Once that was accomplished, then
they started rewriting the laws to their favor and benefit. And,
here we are today. That´s how they ended up in their
position of control. They´ve been working at that since at least
1965 (well, 1933, really, under FDR; well, 1913, really, when the
banks came in, along with their "money supply control" mechanism
called "income tax;" well, 1787, really, when the banking interests
successfully scuttled the would-be "constitution"), and that´s not
going to change back over night. Neither will they just roll over
when pressed on this point. They´ve killed, murdered, massacred, a
lot of (innocent) people to get what they have. But, what is that
position? All they can do, really, is propose the agreements. They
can never compel anyone to enter into those proposed agreements.
It´s "your" country, and "your" life. No one else can live it for
you. Those who prefer tyrannical, law-less despotism will want to
change nothing. Just keep doing what the system says to do, and
don´t ask any questions. Be comfortable and let "santa clause
government" take care of you. Those who prefer to be loose from
tyrannical, law-less despotism will need first to become
individually self-governed. Where the party in the mirror is
self-governed, disciplined, under God´s Laws, then
there´s a chance that a community of self-governed may develop.
It´s so very, very easy to blame someone else for our national
problems, but, in the end, the problem that exists today is 100%
commercial in nature, which means that it´s 100% individual in
nature. Those who feel they are necessarily subservient to the
international banking cartel probably are, and if so, it´s by one
and only one reason, which is understood best by understanding the
"Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."
In "the States," well, today, the STATEs, the bankers are in control
but only because each individual subject to that system has so
agreed to be. It´s not the by-product of the banking industry
(i.e., interest); it´s the banking system´s (proposed, offered)
"choice of law."
It IS a choice, one that hasn´t existed under any prior "Beast"
system. We´re not used to exercising that choice, and most won´t
even try at this stage. A few will, and those few will blaze the
path to whatever recovery this nation is ever going to experience,
this side of the re-manifestation of Messiah.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org
Global Research, November 08, 2019
Web of Debt
It’s the Interest, Stupid! Why Bankers Rule the World