Re: [CTRL] FW: The Problem With Banks [rant]

1999-09-23 Thread Das GOAT

 -Caveat Lector-

Admirably put, to illuminate the sheer absurdity of the con-game known as
"banking."

"Banking" charges are on a par with "taxes," exacted from us by "government"
largely to pay the salaries of the tax collectors, collectively the
"government."  Somehow, after these salaries (and fringe benefits) are
deducted from our tax dollars, there's just never enough left over to pay for
those "services" taxes are ALLEGEDLY being collected for.

Lest we see through the con and object to being subjected to EXTORTION by
members of a small Mafia-like "secret society" masquerading officiously as
"public servants,"
they've had to put the fear of God in us with their "enforcers," the IRS, to
define anyone who refuses to be a VICTIM of criminal extortion as,
ironically, the "CRIMINAL" here --
and thus the purpose of "Law" itself is perverted, making it a means of
preserving and institutionalizing INjustice instead of protecting the just
from predation by criminals.

Such "Catch-22" double-binds (mindfucks) are SO fundamental to
"civilization," SO ancient (beginning with Sumer), that few of us ever dare
QUESTION the incongruity of their "purpose" with their results, asking
ourselves: "What's wrong with this picture?"


The greatest mindfuck of all is what hypnotizes human beings into believing
in every ideal and hypothetical ("as if") abstraction as somehow "ultimately"
MORE real, more trustworthy, than what's obvious to their physical senses,
sans "pretty lies" or alibis.

Let me give you a gross and absurdly simple example:
One day you stumble upon a man angrily and with all his strength stomping a
puppy dog to death. Your senses instantly inform you of what is actually
happening here, in the REAL world, and your immediate reaction is visceral
and emotional -- you are horrified and outraged, and if you have any "heart,"
your first impulse is to try and STOP this villain from injuring and killing
a small defenseless animal.
BUT the man realizes that his actions are being witnessed by another person
--it's now become a PUBLIC act, not a private one-- who is judging him
harshly and may intervene to prevent this act or even punish him for it, so
he turns to you and ... "EXPLAINS."

His WORDS put into your MIND the picture of some "reason" --an IMAGINARY
picture, involving some other "reality" (time, place, events) which YOU have
NOT perceived with YOUR senses-- that shoves aside the evidence of your
physical senses, taking up the space which PERCEPTION had occupied until
then, becoming a SUBSTITUTE for it.  You become UNconscious of the reality
before your very eyes while giving full attention to a DIFFERENT,
UNEXPERIENCED "picture" presented to your IMAGINATION, looking inward at a
"simulated reality" in your own head instead of outward at the REAL world.
The man who's stomping a puppy to death PERSUADES you that it's "justiifed"
by blah-blah-blah (e.g., the pup has rabies but it hasn't manifested yet, so
he's "really" protecting others IN THE FUTURE) -- or the act witnessed is
unfortunate but "forgivable" because blah-blah-blah (e.g., the puppy has
killed someone dear to him IN THE PAST [insert pathetic verbal pictures
evocative of GREATER sympathy] and he's simply "lost control," blindly
avenging himself) -- or, one way or another, it's "really" for everyone's
good, if "seen" in another context that you haven't SENSORILY perceived, and
can't.
So, the VERBAL ABSTRACT-SYMBOLIC PERSUASIVE SKILLS of the man stomping the
puppy dog achieve their end --or if you're naive and gullible enough to
surrender your own judgment uncritically to anyone who invokes the right
concepts (buzz-words, for instance "responsibility" or "principle" or other
presumed values "higher" than LIFE)--
then you tell yourself, with a sigh of relief, that the brute isn't "REALLY"
murdering an innocent, defenseless animal, he's doing SOMETHING ELSE --the
same physical act reinterpreted abstract-symbolically, never mind what it
"appears" to be to your senses--
and you no longer respond emotionally with horror and outrage but with
ACCEPTANCE.

Hence the man killing the puppy, in your trancelike state, is NOT "killing"
the "puppy."

Could there be anything more like "hypnosis" than such a complete denial of
what is physically real, and to be judged accordinglly, in favor of some
HALLUCINATORY image
created by WORDS ALONE, with no perceptible substance in present time & space?

Think about that, and repeat the above example, substituting OTHER HUMAN
BEINGS --even YOURSELF, in some cases-- for the "puppy" who is being
brutalized by what is undoubtedly a savage, but a MODERN savage clever in
rhetorical skills who can offer you all the "reasons" in the world for such
behavior, so many "explanations" to justify
sacrificing the intrinsic value of human life to some purely verbal-symbolic
CONCEPT "BEYOND" it -- and thanks to your deficiency in CONSCIOUSNESS, all
with YOUR consent, and worse yet (in its effect on others!), your COMPLICITY
in HIS savag

[CTRL] FW: The Problem With Banks

1999-09-22 Thread Fransy

 -Caveat Lector-

 The following exchange was published in the British humour  magazine,
Punch, on April 3, 1957.  It is reprinted here:

 

 Q.  What are banks for?
 A.  To make money.

 Q.  For the customers?
 A.  For the banks.

 Q.  Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
 A.  It would not be in good taste.  But it is mentioned by
 implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or
 thereabouts.  That is the money they have made.

 Q.  Out of customers?
 A.  I suppose so.

 Q.  They always mention assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts.
 Have they made that too?
 A.  Not exactly.  That is the money they use to make money.

 Q.  I see.  And (do) they keep it in a safe somewhere?
 A.  Not at all.  They lend it to (their) customers.

 Q.  Then they haven't got it?
 A.  No.

 Q.  Then how is it Assets?
 A.  They maintain it would be if they got it back.

 Q.  But they must have some back?
 A.  Yes, usually about $500,000,000 or thereabouts.  This is
 called Liabilities.

 Q.  But if they've got it how can they be liable for it?
 A.  Because it isn't theirs.

 Q.  Then why do they have it?
 A.  It has been lent to them by (their) customers.

 Q.  You mean that customers lend banks money?
 A.  In effect.  They put money into their accounts, so it is
 really lent to the banks.

 Q.  And what do banks do with it?
 A.  Lend it to other customers.

 Q.  But you said that money lent to other people was Assets?
 A.  Yes.

 Q.  Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
 A.  You can't really say that.

 Q.  But you've just said it.  If  I put $100 into my account
 the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so its
 Liabilities.  But they go and lend it to someone else,
 and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets.
 It's the same $100, isn't it?
 Q.  Then it cancels out.  It means, doesn't it, that banks
 haven't any money at all?
 A.  Theoretically..

 Q.  Never mind, theoretically.  And if they haven't made any
 money where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000 or
thereabouts?
 A.  I told you.  That is the money they have made.

 Q.  How?
 A.  Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him
 interest.

 Q.  How much?
 A.  It depends on the Bank Rate.  Say five and a half per cent.
 That's their profit.

 Q.  Why isn't it my profit?  Isn't it my money?
 A.  It's the theory of banking practise that...

 Q.  When I lend them my $100 why don't I charge them interest?
 A.  You do.

 Q.  You don't say.  How much?
 A.  It depends on the Bank Rate.  Say half of a per cent.

 Q.   Grasping of me, rather?
 A.  But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out
 again.

 Q.  But of course, I'm going to draw the money out again.  If
 I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried
 it in the garden couldn't I?
 A.  They wouldn't want you to draw it out again.

 Q.  Why not?  If I keep it there you say its a Liability.
 Wouldn't they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by
 removing it?
 A.  No.  Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone
 else.

 Q.  But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
 A.  Certainly.

 Q.  But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
 A.  Then they'd let you have someone else's money.

 Q.  But suppose he wants his money too...and they've let me
 have it?
 A.  You're being purposely obtuse.

 Q.  I think I'm being acute.  What if everyone wanted their
 money at once?
 A.  It's the theory of banking practise that they never would.

 Q.  So what banks bank on is never having to meet their
 commitments?
 A.  I wouldn't say that.

 Q.  Naturally.  Well, if there's nothing else you think you
 can tell me...?

 A.  Quite so.  Now you can go off and open a banking account.

 Q.  Just one last question.
 A.  Of course.

 Q.  Wouldn't I do a lot better to go off and open up a bank?




--- ONElist Sponsor 

Share your special moments with family and friends- send PHOTO Greetings
at Zing.com! Use your own photos or choose from a variety of funny,
 cute, cool and animated cards.
   http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/zing9 ">Click Here


"He who has health has hope,and he who has hope has everything."

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credee