Over the last few weeks, I have read a succession of articles in your publication that describe the current financial crisis. None properly explain its cause. We are now experiencing a predictable repetition of economic history, a crisis-in-waiting, and in the absence of an honest diagnosis we will continue to do so in future.
For three hundred years, commercial banking organisations have enriched themselves by creating money out of nothing and then lending it at interest. They are supported in this action by their respective central banks and the full force of the law. The three 'f' words that suitably describe this situation are 'fiduciary fiat fraud'. While the terms 'funny money', 'false money', 'synthetic money', 'token money', 'metaphoric money' and 'IOU money' clearly indicate the nature of today's monetary medium, the words 'fiduciary' and 'fiat' are supreme linguistic distortions. They are designed to obscure reality, not to explain it.
The creation of money out of nothing is a quantitative illusion that when practised by accountants is called 'fiddling the books', and when practised by non-bankers is called 'counterfeiting'. By approving of such activity under special licence to the banking system, the state has allowed the most gargantuan deception to befall the people.
The more money a bank creates, the more it can lend and the more profit it can make. It is therefore in the interest of the banking system to create as much money as possible, but in the process society falls ever more deeply into debt. It is the bankers' own greed in creating money that eventually causes a banking crisis. This is the same crisis that occurred when the first goldsmith was made 'bancus ruptus' for printing fiduciary receipts in excess of his gold reserve, except that the current crisis is several orders of magnitude greater. The fraud of money creation has become institutionalised on a global scale, and the quantitative illusion now operates in the tens of trillions.
Many are those who see the international monetary system as one of the prime means by which control is exerted over the nations of the world. It ranks alongside 'globalisation' and the 'New World Order' in the lexicon of conspiracy theorists. So what are we to make of the sudden outbreak of political unity among the world's most powerful leaders? It is rare to see them agreeing on anything, but when it comes to protecting the banking system they all are in agreement. Few forces could have sponsored such massive and decisive action and it has been undertaken in a storm of propaganda. We have been told that if we do not protect the fraudulent banking system then the world will collapse. It has been a 'millennium-bug' story for the banking industry, and a typical tactic of the elite in times of trouble. By this means, the people have been scared into bailing out their financial overlords at great expense to themselves. They know not where the funds will come from, nor how they will be applied. Could our leaders not first ask whether the banking system in its current form is worthy of protection? Do they think that a system based upon injustice can survive for anything more than a temporary period?
Mr Brown has led us to believe that he is the conqueror of the boom and bust cycle, yet now he acts to defend those who have caused one of the biggest monetary bubbles in history. He was hailed for giving independence to the Bank of England, now he is hailed for nationalising the banks. What is going on? Is it not his responsibility to protect the interests of citizens? Why should the people be asked to pay for the rescue of the very same institutions that have indebted them so fraudulently?
For those who support the monetary system as it is, let them know that it has been established by a variety of most unnatural means. When the people inclined towards gold, the law of legal tender forced them to accept paper. Yet today, those who have forced this system upon the people simultaneously refuse to protect them from its failures. Why is the deposit guarantee not unlimited? Is this not a legal contradiction?
The world is not going to collapse and our financial system will remain in place until the people demand to change it. They have the right to understand the principles upon which our banking system operates so that they can make an informed decision as to its future. In this regard, an influential publication such as yours has a vital responsibility. The subject at hand is much bigger than the mere saving of our banking system. For example, you might like to discuss the practice of usury since it is central to the current crisis (as far as I can tell, your last mention of it was in your 25 November 2000 edition). You might also review the arguments debated between the Banking and Currency schools in the 19th Century, arguments that retain their relevance today. Or perhaps you can give a platform to some of the many monetary reformers who have explained and predicted this crisis in advance. Among them is Professor Frederick Soddy who forwarded his far-sighted plan for reform to the British Treasury more than 50 years ago.
It is the mark of all genuine scientific endeavour that those who were ahead of the game are given preference over those who are wise in hindsight. It is also the mark of genuine journalism that all relevant views are represented. If your publication cannot meet either of these tests, then give up your clamour for justice and democracy.
I look forward to your response.
Mohamed Ghanem, London, 16 October 2008