normalising enslaved sows

Using humans as breeding machines is pure evil.

It’s discussed in the comments, not at the top.

a main purpose of trafficking is to steal white DNA, mostly skin, but especially lighter eyes and hair

it’s a primary purpose of slavery

Surrogacy is a women’s rights issue, and not a human rights issue for homosexual men. This view removes women from the centre of the debate, reframing male entitlement to women’s reproductive function as a pitiable cause to elicit sympathy from would-be progressives. 


rumour has it cults like the Mormons are deliberately producing children to be trafficked

as young as babies

and then there’s the Cinderella effect with child abuse, the probability of gay parents abusing “their” kids (as stories are coming out of pedo parents) and the misogynistic entitlement as if Darwin didn’t already select you out of the gene pool

r-strategists’ sense of entitlement never ends

so all the tradlarpers saying they’re okay with gays, like it’s harmless, tell us you’re okay with letting them rape your sister (“natural conception”)

go ahead, go full Swede

because that’s on the table now

but cucking to Muslims is wrong, huh?

But, perhaps to obscure this reality, the language of the CPSA went to great lengths to erase biological sex. A significant number of edits were made by Democratic lawmakers wherein “mother” was crossed out and replaced with “gestational carrier,” or “person who gave birth.” Such terminology explicitly mirrors the way conservative anti-choice advocates view women, referring to women as “host bodies,” for example.

those guys aren’t conservatives, they’re Satanists

Christian men have a duty to protect women from evil men

Similarly, many instances of the term “woman,” “man,” and “paternity” have been removed and replaced:

know the Satanists by their fruit – abuse girls and women, dehumanise both

and this isn’t white men, if you look into it

farming half-white children

that’s their utopia of white genocide

no white men necessary, so death of their line too, indirectly

In this case, “gestational carrier” is used to refer to the woman whose body is being used to gestate a fertilized embryo that does not carry her DNA, though “handmaid” might be a more appropriate term.

human farming, like “surrogacy” farms in India

they want to legally be able to force women to birth children for them, or something something ‘discrimination’

this flies in the face of the Bible prohibition on rape (Death Penalty), respect for women (god’s children) and sexual selection, whereby women keep many of the crazier genes (spiteful mutants) out of the pool with the ‘creeps’ (real reason IVF m-m ‘couples’ cannot find a willing woman)

it’s anti-Christian

it’s a direct attack on the nuclear family

This is especially troubling given that there are no official records kept regarding how many women die in the surrogacy industry. In January, Michelle Reaves died due to complications from a surrogacy birth. Reaves succumbed to a condition known as an amniotic fluid embolism. According to a statement from the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC):

(how) are no records kept


“Recent studies have shown that surrogate pregnancies are different and are high-risk. Studies show that women pregnant with donor eggs (as in gestational surrogacy) have a more than three-fold risk of developing pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia.”

except white women are human (obviously), the future of the extreme global minority race and already huge victims of trafficking for that breeding sow purpose (usually by Arabs), have been for centuries
giving birth kills women every year, it’s on par with major surgery and the bodily changes/birth can be traumatic

this is like sexual pressganging with a side of rape

even egg donation confers risks of developing endometriosis, infertility, or the fatal condition of OHSS.


but women are not fish, you can’t steal our eggs and expect us to be fine

forcing anyone to carry alone would be traumatising, I don’t see men queuing up to get a womb transplanted because it messes with your head, women hate being pregnant and that’s when it’s their husbands’!

the concept of being entitled to reproduce is exclusively heterosexual in the exclusive mutual agreement of a marriage

the document you’re looking for is a marriage certificate, nothing less gives you reproduction rights over another human. Nobody is entitled to have children and the people who disagree are narcissists, who should be legally banned.

I wonder if they’re trying to normalise this human rights abuse before the pedo stuff comes out

I think we’re starting to see why patriarchy both protects its daughters and hates homosexual men.

It’s still little known that most rapists are practically bisexual (“pan” if you believe in that). They tend to go after women because of the physical weakness of women, not a preference. Look at places like Afghanistan where they overpower little boys and goats.

A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does.

And a man’s reproduction choices are the jurisdiction of his wife, not him. It isn’t one way, it’s equal yoking.

r-types never stop sinking to new lows, including the tranny parent pushers

they believe they own their children and ruthlessly control their life, even going so far as to buy them by force (madwomen like Jolie do this too, it would be false to assume her adoptions were all legal)

Girlhood, Interrupted: Angelina Jolie Forcing Shiloh Into Tomboyhood, Overall Deviance

there was another CDAN blind about Jolie forcing her kids to write sexual fantasies in a journal and give it back to her everyday

these people are insane

insanity looks fine until you talk to it

like the guy who says he’s proud to be gay but feels entitled to rape your niece’s teen womb

rapists are evolutionally after reproduction so it’s rape in multiple senses of the word

A few years ago there were a couple separate cases of couples, one gay and one hetero suing ivf clinics because the kids came out a different race and so was obviously not related to them. I’ve often wondered how common these mix ups are. I bet a lot of times they remain undiscovered because the kid has the same ethnicity as the bio parent so no one guesses.

no that’s deliberate

genocide, only white couples get “mixed up”

who owns the IVF companies (Israel)

Auberon’s slavery reference (1890)

 " Why should either two men live at the discretion of three, or three at the 
discretion of two ? Both propositions are absurd from a reasonable point of view. 
If being a slave and owning a slave are both wrong relations, what difference 
does it make whether there are a million slave-owners and one slave, or one 
slave-owner and a million slaves ? Do robbery and murder cease to be what they 
are if done by ninety-nine per cent, of the population ? Clear your ideas on the 
subject, Mr. Bramston, and see that numbers cannot affect the question of what is 
right and wrong. Suppose some man with the cunning brain of a Napoleon 
were to train and organize the Chinamen, and then should lead them to annex 
such parts of the West as they desired ; on your theory of numbers, if they 
exceeded the population of the country they appropriated it would be all right." 

" I do not say that it is a satisfactory answer; but might not a majority inside 
a country afford a right method of decision, without extending the rule to the case 
of one country against another?" 

" On what ground ? " said Markham. " From where are the rights to come 
which you have so suddenly discovered ? Do you think that the moral laws that 
govern men are made to appear and disappear at our convenience ? Forget that. "

The Victorian translation is “Do one”.

The rationale of mass invasion. It’s even argued by postmodernism a lifetime before it ‘came out’.

Democracy applies ONLY if the people are homogeneous (A People), mature adults (not manchildren or feckless fake tradwives pretending not to be leeches) and not weakened by sexual degeneracy (or they’ll vote in others’ resources to pay for their medical care, welfare, girlfriend’s cohabiting (living in sin) abortion. Sin begets sin.
CHINOs present historically too:

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, successfully called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven.

What did they actually do? Rape the women and children. Kill any men who hadn’t deserted and tried to stop them.

The first commune. And they called for immigration to do it.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Berean Literal Bible
For even when we were with you, we were commanding you this, that “if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat.”

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

so Marx didn’t actually invent Communism, it was CHINOs

a plagiarizing Jew, really?

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

SJWs are hardly new.

But we urge you, brothers, to excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders,

Relying on foreigners for your employ is hardly anti-fragile.

This includes remote workers relying on Asian IT.

without being dependent on anyone.

Go Galt as much as possible and dedicate your time to worthy people of your choosing, not a civil servant tyrant.

MGTOW are acting like they invented being single because if they’re not edgy, bachelor doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. They might be compared with the dreaded spinster.

BoE: 97% of money, fake news

Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are
essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and
companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central
bank.(4)(5) Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits
make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in
circulation.(6) And in the modern economy, those bank
deposits are mostly created by commercial banks

There’s the money shot for those claiming to have the ADDs.

Make a cup of tea.

Thousands of words. Vital if you like affording jack.

9,491w. #dead

There’s no such thing as a rich person.

The zeroes in their bank account are bullshit.

The credit “extended” by banks is like a limit on a credit card – it’s debt.

One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the
deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers,
for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.

White people have based their life and work around a lie.

This opening also 100% contradicts the ending.

In fact, when households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend.

When guys think they can impress me with all the labour they “saved”… er, nah?

It’s a scam, mate.

You was robbed.

Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money.

All those rich people on TV believe in the banks.

This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.(3)

WTF, right?

Double negative plus profit!

Bloody Jews, same MO all over. It’s a wealth transfer. This is why usury is theft.

Reminder, BOE isn’t English nor nationalised. 

Corbyn wouldn’t dare

Remember this next when they blame “central banks” for their situation in the coming collapse.

Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach. In that view, central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a much greater change in bank loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves.

The fraction of fractional reserve fame.

While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality.

Told ya so is implied at this point.

Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates.
In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending,nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available. As with the relationship between deposits and loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England.

Sounds like gambling, with monopoly money, because it is. A monopoly.

It is these lending decisions that determine how many bank deposits are created by the banking system. The amount of bank deposits in turn influences how much central bank money banks want to hold in reserve (to meet withdrawals by the public, make payments to other banks, or meet regulatory liquidity requirements), which is then, in normal times, supplied on demand by the Bank of England. The rest of this article discusses these practices in more detail.

Imagine my shock.

Following the reassuring title

Money creation in reality

Lending creates deposits — broad money
determination at the aggregate level
As explained in ‘Money in the modern economy: an
introduction’, broad money is a measure of the total amount
of money held by households and companies in the economy.
Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are
essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and
companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central
bank.(4)(5) Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits
make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in
circulation.(6) And in the modern economy, those bank
deposits are mostly created by commercial banks

I love it when American a-holes laugh at me for just explaining this like, fine, trust the banks.

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans.

One of the funniest sentences ever written.

Closely followed by:

At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.(1)




Most people don’t get the joke.

Figure 1 is a nifty illustration of debt slavery.

As shown in the third row of Figure 1, the new deposits increase the assets of the consumer (here taken to represent households and companies) — the extra red bars — and the new loan increases their liabilities — the extra white bars. New broad money has been created. Similarly, both sides of the
commercial banking sector’s balance sheet increase as new money and loans are created. It is important to note that although the simplified diagram of Figure 1 shows the amount of new money created as being identical to the amount of new lending, in practice there will be several factors that may subsequently cause the amount of deposits to be different from the amount of lending. These are discussed in detail in the next section.

It’s such a fucking con. One day…

For no apparent reason they were kicked out of ..everywhere.

For no apparent reason, …people were mad with rage.

For no apparent reason, millions of people wanted them dead.

…More than once.


The new term for slave-driver is banker.

Serfdom is rebranded with better PR as property and council tax.

And reserves are, in normal times, supplied ‘on demand’ by the Bank of England to commercial banks in
exchange for other assets on their balance sheets.

Speaking of stealing from the worker, comrade…

In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrain the amount of bank lending or deposit creation. 
This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section.

They act like they didn’t spread these fairytales.

This is why the People dragged Cromwell through the streets as a traitor but these people put a statue of him outside Parliament.

Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out. A related misconception is that banks can lend out their reserves. Reserves can only be lent between banks, since consumers do not have access to reserves accounts at the Bank of England.(2)

Why is that, dya think? Wrong tribe. Hat too big.

How many workers would down tools at this information?

They HATE you. Go Galt, as much as possible.

You’re a customer because you buy their ‘product’ of fake fiat money.

It gets weirder.

Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money.(3)


For example, suppose a consumer has spent money in the supermarket throughout the month by using a credit card. Each purchase made using the credit card will have increased the outstanding loans on the
consumer’s balance sheet and the deposits on the supermarket’s balance sheet (in a similar way to that shown in Figure 1). If the consumer were then to pay their credit card bill in full at the end of the month, its bank would reduce the amount of deposits in the consumer’s account by the value of the credit card bill, thus destroying all of the newly created money.

But that anecdote is credit card, not debit…

Banks making loans and consumers repaying them are the most significant ways in which bank deposits are created and destroyed in the modern economy. But they are far from the only ways. Deposit creation or destruction will also occur any time the banking sector (including the central bank) buys or sells existing assets from or to consumers, or, more often, from companies or the government.

Asset bubbles.

Banks buying and selling government bonds is one particularly important way in which the purchase or sale of existing assets by banks creates and destroys money. Banks often buy and hold government bonds as part of their portfolio of liquid assets that can be sold on quickly for central bank money if,
for example, depositors want to withdraw currency in large amounts.(1) When banks purchase government bonds from the non-bank private sector they credit the sellers with bank deposits.(2) And, as discussed later in this article, central bank asset purchases, known as quantitative easing (QE), have
similar implications for money creation.
Money can also be destroyed through the issuance of long-term debt and equity instruments by banks. In addition to deposits, banks hold other liabilities on their balance sheets.
Banks manage their liabilities to ensure that they have at least some capital and longer-term debt liabilities to mitigate certain risks and meet regulatory requirements. Because these ‘non-deposit’ liabilities represent longer-term investments in the banking system by households and companies, they cannot be exchanged for currency as easily as bank deposits, and therefore increase the resilience of the bank.

Faith. An article of faith. In bankers we trust.
Almost like the whole system was designed by people who wanted to get out of dodge if desired but entrap people into it in the mean time.

When banks issue these longer-term debt and equity instruments to non-bank financial companies, those companies pay for them with bank deposits. That reduces the amount of deposit, or money, liabilities on the banking sector’s balance sheet and increases their non-deposit liabilities.(3)

This isn’t taught in schools.

The schools exist so as NOT to teach this.

Buying and selling of existing assets and issuing longer-term liabilities may lead to a gap between lending and deposits in a closed economy. Additionally, in an open economy such as the United Kingdom, deposits can pass from domestic residents to overseas residents, or sterling deposits could be converted into foreign currency deposits.

We need national capitalism. It’s plain to see. Treeeeeeason.

These transactions do not destroy money per se,

Misuse of per se if ever I saw one.

but overseas residents’ deposits and foreign currency deposits are not always counted as part of a country’s money supply.

trans. Yes, we and they rob you blind but it’s good for us.

This is why capitalism must be NATIONAL. Do not let the cronies escape.

Why negative rates basically must happen:

Limits to broad money creation
Although commercial banks create money through their lending behaviour, they cannot in practice do so without limit. In particular, the price of loans — that is, the interest rate (plus any fees) charged by banks — determines the amount that households and companies will want to borrow. A number of
factors influence the price of new lending, not least the monetary policy of the Bank of England, which affects the level of various interest rates in the economy.
The limits to money creation by the banking system were discussed in a paper by Nobel Prize winning economist James Tobin and this topic has recently been the subject of debate among a number of economic commentators and bloggers.(4) In the modern economy there are three main sets
of constraints that restrict the amount of money that banks can create.
(i) Banks themselves face limits on how much they can lend. In particular:
• Market forces constrain lending because individual
banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive

muh “market forces”

also what competition?

• Lending is also constrained because banks have to take
steps to mitigate the risks associated with making
additional loans.

haha …ha

• Regulatory policy acts as a constraint on banks’
activities in order to mitigate a build-up of risks that
could pose a threat to the stability of the financial

No, they got those revoked.

(ii) Money creation is also constrained by the behaviour of
the money holders — households and businesses.
Households and companies who receive the newly created
money might respond by undertaking transactions that
immediately destroy it, for example by repaying
outstanding loans.

The goy must be stopped!

Saved from their own responsibility and impulse to freedom!

Buy partial stocks in Impossibru Burger!

It’s never a profit unless you cash it out.

(iii) The ultimate constraint on money creation is monetary

Monetary policy is a fairytale used to scare young Jews. It has never really existed.

Along with the old one “fiscal responsibility”.

Where? When?

Nowhere. Never.

By influencing the level of interest rates in the economy, the Bank of England’s monetary policy affects
how much households and companies want to borrow. This occurs both directly, through influencing the loan rates charged by banks, but also indirectly through the overall effect of monetary policy on economic activity in the economy.

Leprechaun farts, got it.

As a result, the Bank of England is able to ensure that money growth is consistent with its objective of low and stable inflation.

Subtle and permanent enslavement.

You’re already treading water but seem to move. It’s just your legs.

The remainder of this section explains how each of these mechanisms work in practice.
(i) Limits on how much banks can lend

Market forces facing individual banks
Figure 1 showed how, for the aggregate banking sector, loans are initially created with matching deposits. But that does not mean that any given individual bank can freely lend and create
money without limit. That is because banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive market, and ensure that they adequately manage the risks associated with making loans.

Banks are famous in this era for lending profitably.

To whose profit, who can say?

Banks receive interest payments on their assets, such as loans,

Debt = asset

How can they receive …payment… on a debt they…? Wait, what?

but they also generally have to pay interest on their liabilities, such as savings accounts. A bank’s business model relies on receiving a higher interest rate on the loans (or other assets) than the rate it pays out on its deposits (or other liabilities).

They hate workers.

Introduce a capital gains tax with a rate well over income.

Introduce a net worth tax kicking in at 10 million. Watch the rats scurry. No lefty is allowed to suggest it.

Audit their money for corruption.

Do not feel guilty about time off.

Interest rates on both banks’ assets and liabilities depend on the policy rate set by the Bank of England, which acts as the ultimate constraint on money creation.

Yes, you read that right.

The ultimate constraint on the bank being evil is…


the bank.

The commercial bank uses the difference, or spread, between the expected return on their assets and liabilities to cover its operating costs and to make profits.(1)


Debt is not profit.

Usury is that Big Lie.

In order to make extra loans, an individual bank will typically have to lower its loan rates relative to its competitors to induce households and companies to borrow more. And once it has made the loan it may well ‘lose’ the deposits it has created to those competing banks.

Screwing people is only bad when it happens to them.

LOL at ‘lose’

Can you lose at your own casino?

Both of these factors affect the profitability of making a loan for an individual bank and influence how much borrowing takes place.

How many businesses are allowed to start nationally.

Why is GDP in the shitter?

For example, suppose an individual bank lowers the rate it charges on its loans, and that attracts a household to take out a mortgage to buy a house. The moment the mortgage loan is made, the household’s account is credited with new deposits.
And once they purchase the house, they pass their new deposits on to the house seller. This situation is shown in the first row of Figure 2. The buyer is left with a new asset in the form of a house and a new liability in the form of a new loan. 

They never give without taking more.

I don’t blame the Boomers for falling for some of this but… all of it?

People used to be able to buy a home outright, this was the norm until they convinced that generation a mortgage was normal. In a way, Boomers are history’s biggest suckers.

The seller is left with money in the form of bank deposits instead of a house.

97% of the economy. Crap. Abject crap.

Butter used to be half a penny less than a century ago. This is why.

This keeps you tapped into their system, since you must park the ‘profit’…. in ANOTHER BANK.

It is more likely than not that the seller’s account will be with a different bank to the buyer’s. So when the transaction takes place, the new deposits will be transferred to the seller’s bank, as shown in the second row of Figure 2.

The buyer’s bank would then have fewer deposits than assets. In the first instance, the buyer’s bank settles with the seller’s bank by transferring reserves. But that would leave the buyer’s bank with fewer reserves and more loans relative to its deposits than before. This is likely to be problematic for the bank since it would increase the risk that it would not be able to meet all of its likely outflows. And, in practice, banks make many such loans every day. So if a given bank financed all of its new loans in this way, it would soon run out of reserves.

trans. They don’t want you buying assets, they want you selling them!

This includes “foreclosure”, selling to them. Buying assets, you give away their money for something real and give away their hold on you, to a degree. Since you can take the asset elsewhere as net worth or sell it to pay down debt. Sure, it scuppers the competition but the system is rigged. Selling assets, it adds to the pool since somebody needs to borrow to buy or the banks can step in and ‘buy’ it, while allowing them to cash out at a higher price when you deposit it back… with them.

A profit. You grew their money for them. Deposits are liabilities but ….97%.

Of the fake money economy. They’ve been doing this for a while.

Banks therefore try to attract or retain additional liabilities to accompany their new loans. In practice other banks would also be making new loans and creating new deposits, so one way they can do this is to try and attract some of those newly created deposits. In a competitive banking sector, that may
involve increasing the rate they offer to households on their savings accounts. By attracting new deposits, the bank can increase its lending without running down its reserves, as shown in the third row of Figure 2.

By hooking new fish, the hook becomes useful again after gutting the old fish.

So much for loyalty.

Alternatively, a bank can borrow from other banks or attract other forms of liabilities, at least temporarily. But whether through deposits or other liabilities, the bank would need to make sure it was attracting and retaining some kind of funds in order to keep expanding lending.

Why bankers hate Gens Y and Z. They have no money.

But unlike other generations, they actually know this.

And the cost of that needs to be measured against the interest the bank expects to earn on the loans it is making, which in turn depends on the level of Bank Rate set by the Bank of England. For example, if a bank continued to attract new borrowers and increase lending by reducing mortgage rates, and sought to attract new deposits by increasing the rates it was paying on its customers’deposits, it might soon find it unprofitable to keep expanding its lending. Competition for loans and deposits, and the desire to make a profit, therefore limit money creation by banks.

They need to screw you because it’s their job, have some sympathy. Tiffani needs a new yacht.

They can’t enable young people to have any savings or (gasp) net worth, while the old people are dumb enough to be on their fourth remortgage. It’s a see-saw.

If interest rates went up before they went negative, the margin call would leave the stupid unable to borrow.

We can’t have THAT.

[see Best Post]

The cliche Boomers and their reckless ilk must be bailed-out at all costs.

At ALL costs.

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

Managing the risks associated with making loans

pull the other one

Banks also need to manage the risks associated with making new loans. One way in which they do this is by making sure that they attract relatively stable deposits to match their new loans, that is, deposits that are unlikely or unable to be withdrawn in large amounts. This can act as an additional limit to how much banks can lend. For example, if all of the deposits that a bank held were in the form of instant access accounts, such as current accounts, then the bank might run the risk of lots of these deposits being withdrawn in a short period of time. Because banks tend to lend for periods of many months or years, the bank may not be able to repay all of those deposits — it would face a great deal of liquidity risk. In order to reduce liquidity risk, banks try to make sure that some of their deposits are fixed for a certain period of time, or term.(2) Consumers are likely to require compensation for the inconvenience of holding longer-term deposits, however, so these are likely to be more costly for banks, limiting the amount of lending banks wish to do. And as discussed earlier, if banks guard against liquidity risk by issuing long-term liabilities, this may destroy money directly when companies pay for them using deposits. Individual banks’ lending is also limited by considerations of credit risk.

The bank manager is there to manage you.

Credit score = Sucker rating.

This is the risk to the bank of lending to borrowers who turn out to be unable to repay their loans.

Or unwilling.

They rely on your ignorance.

In part, banks can guard against credit risk by having sufficient capital to absorb any unexpected losses on their loans.

If it’s unexpected, how can they calculate it?

Never mind.

But since loans will always involve some risk to banks of incurring losses, the cost of these losses will be taken into account when pricing loans. When a bank makes a loan, the interest rate it charges will typically include compensation for the average level of credit losses the bank expects to suffer. The size of this component of the interest rate will be larger when banks estimate that they will suffer higher losses, for example when lending to mortgagors with a high loan to value ratio. As banks expand lending, their average expected loss per loan is likely to increase, making those loans less profitable. This further limits the amount of lending banks can profitably do, and the money they can therefore create.

Mortgages in one.

But prices can never go down!

Market forces do not always lead individual banks to sufficiently protect themselves against liquidity and credit risks.


Because of this, prudential regulation aims to ensure that banks do not take excessive risks when making new loans, including via requirements for banks’ capital and liquidity positions. These requirements can therefore act as an additional brake on how much money commercial banks create by lending. The prudential regulatory framework, along with more detail on capital and liquidity, is described in Farag,
Harland and Nixon (2013). So far this section has considered the case of an individual bank making additional loans by offering competitive interest rates — both on its loans and deposits. But if all banks simultaneously decide to try to do more lending, money growth may not be limited in quite the same way.

A con.

That is called… a con.

Short for conspiracy.

The silly idea that someone, somewhere, is trying to fuck you.

Although an individual bank may lose deposits to other banks, it would itself be likely to gain some deposits as a result of the other banks making loans. 

Why oh WHY do they want a ‘cashless’ society?


Every step you take, every move you make… must be sanctioned by your Woke Overlords.

There are a number of reasons why many banks may choose
to increase their lending markedly at the same time. For
example, the profitability of lending at given interest rates
could increase because of a general improvement in economic
conditions. Alternatively, banks may decide to lend more if
they perceive the risks associated with making loans to
households and companies to have fallen. This sort of
development is sometimes argued to be one of the reasons
why bank lending expanded so much in the lead up to the
financial crisis.(1) But if that perception of a less risky
environment were unwarranted, the result could be a more
fragile financial system.(2)

This is a public BOE admission.

One of the responses to the crisis in
the United Kingdom has been the creation of a
macroprudential authority, the Financial Policy Committee, to
identify, monitor and take action to reduce or remove risks
which threaten the resilience of the financial system as a

Can they bring bayonets?

(ii) Constraints arising from the response of households
and companies
In addition to the range of constraints facing banks that act to
limit money creation, the behaviour of households and
companies in response to money creation by the banking
sector can also be important, as argued by Tobin. The
behaviour of the non-bank private sector influences the
ultimate impact that credit creation by the banking sector has
on the stock of money because more (or less) money may be
created than they wish to hold relative to other assets (such as
property or shares).

Has… on the stock of MONEY.

How quickly is your value inflated away? Zero isn’t an option.

As the households and companies who
take out loans do so because they want to spend more, they
will quickly pass that money on to others as they do so. How
those households and companies then respond will determine
the stock of money in the economy, and potentially have
implications for spending and inflation.
There are two main possibilities for what could happen to
newly created deposits. First, as suggested by Tobin, the
money may quickly be destroyed if the households or
companies receiving the money after the loan is spent wish to
use it to repay their own outstanding bank loans. This is
sometimes referred to as the ‘reflux theory’.(4)
For example, a first-time house buyer may take out a
mortgage to purchase a house from an elderly person who, in
turn, repays their existing mortgage and moves in with their

Why they hate extended family.

As discussed earlier, repaying bank loans destroys
money just as making loans creates it. So, in this case, the
balance sheet of consumers in the economy would be
returned to the position it was in before the loan was made.

Responsibility screws bankers.

The second possible outcome is that the extra money creation
by banks can lead to more spending in the economy.

Ah, the hippy view. Materialism enabling hedonism larping as spiritualism.

For newly created money to be destroyed, it needs to pass to
households and companies with existing loans who want to
repay them. But this will not always be the case, since asset
and debt holdings tend to vary considerably across individuals

in the economy.(5)

If you wake up, they lose.

“Neither buyer nor lender be”.

Yes, this con is literally as old as the sodding Bible.

It’s literally referring to this caveat.

Why they hate Christians.

Debtor’s prisons never went away, you know.

Instead, the money may initially pass to
households or companies with positive holdings of financial
assets: the elderly person may have already paid off their
mortgage, or a company receiving money as a payment may
already have sufficient liquid assets to cover possible
outgoings. They may then be left holding more money than
they desire, and attempt to reduce their ‘excess’ money
holdings by increasing their spending on goods and services.

Without inflation, there’d be no impulse to drop the hot potato.

…By feeding into the fiat ponzi.

“Infinite growth” model, Cancer Economy.

Cancer of the People.

No inflation? Gold-backing?

Imagine: ACTUAL savings.

If the poor didn’t need to buy computers to train, work remotely or put in job applications, computer companies might go bust. Remember that the next time someone’s complaining why the poor buy so much.

Because they sodding have to. Their parents gave them nothing.

Rank classism.

(In the case of a company it may instead buy other,
higher-yielding, assets.)

Buying shinier shit is better.

These two scenarios for what happens to newly created
money — being quickly destroyed or being passed on via
spending — have very different implications for economic
activity. In the latter, the money may continue to be passed
between different households and companies each of whom
may, in turn, increase their spending. This process —
sometimes referred to as the ‘hot potato’ effect

can lead, other things equal, to increased inflationary pressure on the

Blaming the population instead of themselves.


Inflation is caused by poor people needing stuff to live, the bastards – bankers picking inflation rates.

As soon as the poor people start to gain traction with their labour, which is the only true value in an economy, their net worth is yanked back with more inflation. A donkey running with a carrot just out of reach.

Really. So when the poor had fewer children from reduced mortality, immigration just HAD to happen…

Why they hate K-types and K-selection.

They want the value but not the values. Like all leeches.

Look for patterns. If poor people saved up and took time off for the kids, middle-class people might need a real job!

Whose labour do they all borrow against? Not Owen Jones.

This is why poverty always exists. The poor are not poor in effort, merely credit.

They tread water against inflation and, if unemployed, the welfare cliff.

Mark my discussion of classism against that of the hive Marxist. Mine fits.

The middle-class must die for the people to survive. Basically. This aligns with reality.

What is the middle-class today but screwing its national interests? It’s doomed to die, let it.

What next?

I’ve written about deflation followed by hyper. Yonks ago.

In contrast, if the money is quickly destroyed as in the former
scenario, there need be no further effects on the economy.
This section has so far discussed how the actions of banks,
households and companies can affect the amount of money in
the economy, and therefore inflationary pressure.

The hand holding the poor down for your cronies and sockpuppets.

But the ultimate determinant of monetary conditions in the economy
is the monetary policy of the central bank.
(iii) Monetary policy — the ultimate constraint on money


One of the Bank of England’s primary objectives is to ensure
monetary stability by keeping consumer price inflation on
track to meet the 2% target set by the Government.

How much do you imagine the working class can save?

And, as discussed in the box on pages 22–23, over some periods of
time, various measures of money have grown at a similar rate
to nominal spending, which determines inflationary pressure
in the economy in the medium term. So setting monetary
policy appropriately to meet the inflation target should
ultimately ensure a stable rate of credit and money creation
consistent with meeting that target. This section explains the
relationship between monetary policy and different types of

Target. But that’s passive English. Target who?

Inflation oppresses the working poor. Every year, the net worth of your labour dwindles.

Despite that being the actual economy. The work. The stuff made. 

Fiat is Marxist because all you ‘own’ is taxed via their system, especially inflation.

How can rates go down while VAT goes up?

In normal times, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), like
most of its equivalents in other countries, implements
monetary policy by setting short-term interest rates,
specifically by setting the interest rate paid on central bank
reserves held by commercial banks. It is able to do so because

of the Bank’s position as the monopoly provider of central
bank money in the United Kingdom.

Monopoly money.

And it is because there is demand for central bank money — the ultimate means of
settlement for banks, the creators of broad money — that the
price of reserves has a meaningful impact on other interest
rates in the economy.

“Our money is legit because we say so!”

Circular reasoning.

There is only ‘demand’ because they have that monopoly.

The interest rate that commercial banks can obtain on money
placed at the central bank influences the rate at which they
are willing to lend on similar terms in sterling money markets
the markets in which the Bank and commercial banks lend
to each other and other financial institutions.

Race to the bottom.

“I’ll agree it’s real if you agree it’s real”

No clothes.

The exact
details of how the Bank uses its money market operations to
implement monetary policy has varied over time, and central
bank operating procedures today differ somewhat from
country to country, as discussed in Clews, Salmon and
Weeken (2010).(1) Changes in interbank interest rates then
feed through to a wider range of interest rates in different
markets and at different maturities, including the interest
rates that banks charge borrowers for loans and offer savers
for deposits.(2)

Don’t question the system or how we screw you nationally by jurisdiction.

Never ever compare notes.

By influencing the price of credit in this way,

price of

price of credit

monetary policy affects the creation of broad money.

And imagine how awful credit cards will be in a cashless system!

Laziness went from gold bars into coins to lighter notes and now to a single card, like the classic aristocrat who never carried money and put it all “on the tab”, allowing them to run up huge debts without noticing…. oh.

It’s a calling card. That’s clever.

One century at a time. Devious.

But the banks must vouch for everyone… and their wokeness.

I wouldn’t be shocked if the mark of the beast turned out to be a dollar sign. Honestly nope.

This description of the relationship between monetary policy
and money differs from the description in many introductory
textbooks, where central banks determine the quantity of
broad money via a ‘money multiplier’ by actively varying the
quantity of reserves.(3) In that view, central banks implement
monetary policy by choosing the quantity of reserves. And,
because there is assumed to be a stable ratio of broad money
to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a
much greater change in bank deposits as banks increase
lending and deposits.
Neither step in that story represents an accurate description of
the relationship between money and monetary policy in the
modern economy. Central banks do not typically choose a
quantity of reserves to bring about the desired short-term
interest rate.(4) Rather, they focus on prices — setting
interest rates.(5)

You work – but they tell you how much you can charge. Human rights issue?

The Bank of England controls interest rates
by supplying and remunerating reserves at its chosen policy

They ref their own game and, wow, always win! Such talent!

The supply of both reserves and currency (which
together make up base money) is determined by banks’
demand for reserves both for the settlement of payments and
to meet demand for currency from their customers — demand
that the central bank typically accommodates.
This demand for base money is therefore more likely to be a
consequence rather than a cause of banks making loans and
creating broad money.

Forcing demand for your own product – Marxism. So great they have to build walls to keep you IN.

The only MOP that matters is the national currency printing press the national people are forced to use by threat of violence, run by international traitors. You cannot produce jack shit (even a humble sickle and hammer) without translating it into shitty fiat at some point, diluting the value of you, your labour. This is why nobody wants to run to the gold standard for their country, demand for their currency would drown them, drown the people too. Crushing by stampede, they give you a world of 90-something % fake money for your real? No comprendez.

Yet no Labour protests at the BOE. Edgelords.

But then there’s national debt being backed by non-alloidal property (where you pay property tax, so serf rent). Another can of worms on the grave of the West.

This is because banks’ decisions to extend credit are based on the availability of profitable lending
opportunities at any given point in time.


The profitability of making a loan will depend on a number of factors, as discussed earlier. One of these is the cost of funds that banks face, which is closely related to the interest rate paid on reserves, the policy rate.

The policy to screw you until just before you die.

Emperor’s Clothes… as a clothing line.

In contrast, the quantity of reserves already in the system does
not constrain the creation of broad money through the act of
lending.(6) This leg of the money multiplier is sometimes
motivated by appealing to central bank reserve requirements,
whereby banks are obliged to hold a minimum amount of
reserves equal to a fixed proportion of their holdings of
deposits. But reserve requirements are not an important
aspect of monetary policy frameworks in most advanced
economies today.(7)
A looser stance of monetary policy is likely to increase the
stock of broad money

it’s at 97%

what happens at 100?

by reducing loan rates and increasing
the volume of loans. And a larger stock of broad money,
accompanied by an increased level of spending in the
economy, may cause banks and customers to demand more
reserves and currency.(8)

Nice bait and switch.

So they rely on you being thick.

So, in reality, the theory of the
money multiplier operates in the reverse way to that normally

Writing this is exhausting.


They’ll increase reserves of fake money LATER when the economy’s stuffed safer with other fake money.

Heard it here first. You can build the roof before the walls and it magically fucking FLOATS.

And then, one day… for no reason at all…

QE — creating broad money directly with
monetary policy

#rubs hands#

also, “monetary policy”

The previous section discussed how monetary policy can be
seen as the ultimate limit to money creation by commercial

In the same way a pimp is the ultimate limit on how many times you can see his hooker.

But commercial banks could alternatively create too
little money to be consistent with the economy meeting the
inflation target.

Inflation target clearly a dog whistle.

In normal times, the MPC can respond by
lowering the policy rate to encourage more lending and hence
more money creation. But, in response to the financial crisis,
the MPC cut Bank Rate to 0.5% — the so-called effective
lower bound.
Once short-term interest rates reach the effective lower
bound, it is not possible for the central bank to provide further
stimulus to the economy by lowering the rate at which
reserves are remunerated.(9)

How awful, let’s get rid of those pesky limits!

Surely the stimulus is…. the worker?

And what if the rate’s negative but nobody wants to borrow because prices are too high?

Young people have the luxury of waiting, Boomers.

One possible way of providing
further monetary stimulus to the economy is through a
programme of asset purchases (QE). Like reductions in Bank

I missed out the blue section for clarity.

Suffice to say



Rate, asset purchases are a way in which the MPC can loosen
the stance of monetary policy in order to stimulate economic
activity and meet its inflation target. But the role of money in
the two policies is not the same.

Stimulate the economy? How about support domestic, law-abiding, tax-paying workers?

You can stimulate appetite by throwing up, that’s Keynesian-ism, folks!

Fiat anorexia. The banks always need more food and lifeblood of the populace, despite getting fat already, they need more bail outs, more bail ins, more debt. The people are always fine, corporations are people.

Communism is pretty much cashless. They know where all the assets are. No hiding.

On a related note, a word about “credit scores”.

(((Credit scores)))

It’s called or considered a “sucker score” in banking because it tells you(r manager) how easy it is to sell that person on new debt or newfangled “financial products” that “repackage” high risk as shiny and hot (shit, like a fresh pile of steaming dog shit) – that’s why they make it so hard to push past certain levels of the score, so you’ll keep cock-surfing them financially like a greedy little rat pushing a lever, kinda like the guys who brag about their MENSA score they got age 12 (that no longer counts) they KNOW men will brag about it.

Women don’t care. Women care about savings. The mere fact you have them.

It could be ten bucks or ten million. This has been a PSA to never ever tell a woman your sucker score. Don’t tell men either. They’ll hate you or they’ll feel superior to you. Just don’t do it. Never complain, never explain.

QE involves a shift in the focus of monetary policy to the
quantity of money: the central bank purchases a quantity of
assets, financed by the creation of broad money and a
corresponding increase in the amount of central bank reserves.

A shift in sexual position to screw you a little harder, a little deeper, in a way you won’t feel until morning.

You may purchase a quantity of lubricant, alas, it is futile.

There is a corresponding increase in anal bleed.

Prolapse imminent.

Poor analogy.

The sellers of the assets will be left holding the newly created
deposits in place of government bonds. They will be likely to
be holding more money than they would like,

when has a human in history ever held more actual money than they’d like?

relative to other assets that they wish to hold. They will therefore want to
rebalance their portfolios,

ah, the illusion of choice

casino A or casino B

you’re a smart panda, pat pat

Buy Japan. Huge opportunity (for loss).

for example by using the new deposits to buy higher-yielding assets such as bonds and
shares issued by companies — leading to the ‘hot potato’
effect discussed earlier.

Keynesian bloat.

Could be plague.

Forcing people to spend their ‘money’ isn’t a hyper-inflationary culture, don’t be silly!

Did bills go up last quarter? Exactly.

Also, yield is priced according to public perception of risk.

How many dudebro investors don’t know this?

It’s one email removed from the Nigerian prince scam.

If you won’t make back the principal invested, you lost. Add up how many years that would take with an average rate of returns. See how much longer that is than expected? Maths is hard. They priced in your gullibility**. All the “rich white guy” investor stories in Hollywood produced a flux of interest from the lay public, preventing a huge reset in the 80s. When it ought to have first happened.

They had a good run since the Depression they caused, half a century.

**”Investor confidence”.

It’s a complete (((coincidence))) they made Wolf on Wall Street recently for the now-largest demo, Millennials, to suddenly, by their own special snowflake super individual decision making, suddenly choose to get into it.


And to drive the point home with young men, a reverse psychology campaign.

Compared to the actual film:

Sure you did, bucko.

This will raise the value of those

It doesn’t raise VALUE but PRICE.

By increasing VALUATION.

Vive le sodding difference.

and lower the cost to companies of raising funds in
these markets.


So rich people irresponsible with money are entrusted with more of it.

That, in turn, should lead to higher spending in
the economy.(1)

Money’s at the wrong end!

The way in which QE works

If a thing works, dear boy, we need only do it once.

Hiroshima was just showing off.

therefore differs
from two common misconceptions about central bank asset

misconceptions or lies?


jk your opinion means nothing

like their fiat

that QE involves giving banks ‘free money’;

free to them

that the key aim of QE is to increase bank lending by providing
more reserves to the banking system, as might be described by
the money multiplier theory. This section explains the
relationship between money and QE and dispels these

Reserves are a myth, like deposits.

What are deposits backed by, again?

The link between QE and quantities of money
QE has a direct effect on the quantities of both base and broad
money because of the way in which the Bank carries out its
asset purchases. The policy aims to buy assets, government
bonds, mainly from non-bank financial companies, such as
pension funds or insurance companies.

Two things you should never trust.

Consider, for example,
the purchase of £1 billion of government bonds from a pension

Naturally, crony capitalism is a crazy conspiracy theory.

I mean, where’s the evidence?

One way in which the Bank could carry out the purchase
would be to print £1 billion of banknotes and swap these
directly with the pension fund.

One way, that is.

Erm, call me old-fashioned, but where is the value creation there?

I mean, I have a stack of Monopoly paper, can I play?

I’ve been practicing my dreidel, if that helps? I’m pretty sure I summoned a demon.

But transacting in such large
quantities of banknotes is impractical. These sorts of
transactions are therefore carried out using electronic forms of

Clearly the superior choice.

No borders.

As the pension fund does not hold a reserves account with the
Bank of England, the commercial bank with whom they hold a
bank account is used as an intermediary.

That whooshing sound is your life draining away to pay for people who call you lazy.

But don’t tax capital gains even on PAR with income because something something envy.

Let the rich families financially kneecap the poor families before the race of effort starts, that’s only fair.

The pension fund’s bank credits the pension fund’s account with £1 billion of
deposits in exchange for the government bonds.

Yes, imaginary deposits.

This is the BoE telling you this.

Gilts, huh? But I thought nationalism bad? Regardless they’re trying to move a lot of old (18th century!) debt off the books.

What do they know?

“The move comes as the Treasury attempts to remove all six of its remaining undated gilts in its portfolio, including some debt originally issued in the era of the South Sea Bubble in the 18th century.”

Before you get excited, “start” paying off. 2014:

“In October last year, Chancellor George Osborne announced the UK would start paying off the remaining debt of around £2 billion, having until then paid £1.26 billion in total interest on the bonds.

In December, Osborne said: “We can, at last, pay off the debts Britain incurred to fight the First World War.”

1914 – 2014 = “start”

But trust the banks with your life… savings. You’ll get it back in a century, maybe.

Crony capitalism is clearly fake news. There is no evidence of conspiracy between bank and government.

You must trust both or only one depending on who the puppet is this week.

We have always and never been in debt.

This is shown in the first panel of Figure 3. The Bank of England finances its
purchase by crediting reserves to the pension fund’s bank — it
gives the commercial bank an IOU (second row). The
commercial bank’s balance sheet expands: new deposit
liabilities are matched with an asset in the form of new
reserves (third row).


Two misconceptions about how QE works

You keep using that word.

Why the extra reserves are not ‘free money’ for banks

Bless you for lasting this long.

Typing and formatting this is killing me.

While the central bank’s asset purchases involve — and affect
— commercial banks’ balance sheets, the primary role of those
banks is as an intermediary to facilitate the transaction
between the central bank and the pension fund.

Okay, abolish the middle man.

Or re-establish them as the source (what’s one private entity over another?) and abolish the central banks.

You literally admit they’re unnecessary.

The additional reserves shown in Figure 3 are simply a by-product
of this transaction.

It is sometimes argued that, because they
are assets held by commercial banks that earn interest, these
reserves represent ‘free money’ for banks.

Yeah. That’s called logic.

It can be argued and it is also true.

While banks do earn interest on the newly created reserves,
QE also creates an accompanying liability for the bank in the
form of the pension fund’s deposit, which the bank will itself
typically have to pay interest on.

Typically? And what are the rates in either case?

Vague example is vague.

In other words, QE leaves banks with both a new IOU
from the central bank but also a new, equally sized IOU
to consumers (in this case, the pension fund), and the
interest rates on both of these depend on Bank Rate.

But you manipulate your own rates.

Why the extra reserves are not multiplied up into new
loans and broad money

As discussed earlier, the transmission mechanism of QE relies
on the effects of the newly created broad — rather than base
— money. The start of that transmission is the creation of 

bank deposits on the asset holder’s balance sheet in the place
of government debt (Figure 3, first row). Importantly, the
reserves created in the banking sector (Figure 3, third row) do
not play a central role.


This is because, as explained earlier,
banks cannot directly lend out reserves.

Useless regulated hogwash.

Reserves are an IOU from the central bank to commercial banks.

So IF the “commercial banks” fail, the “central” banks have no actual reserves.

Nada. Nil. Zippo. Nothing?

Am I reading this right?

And IF the commercial banks fail, tell me the price of rope.

Those banks can use them to make payments to each other, but they cannot
‘lend’ them on to consumers in the economy, who do not hold
reserves accounts.

We could resolve this legal technicality. Why should a small select group of Bankers get a special type of account?

Since common folk aren’t allowed to start-up banks any more, too much red tape.

When banks make additional loans they are matched by extra deposits — the amount of reserves does not change.

But deposits are debt.

double neg equals good

I am guessing the reserve doesn’t change because it doesn’t magically pop into existence at any point.

Like bread in a Communist country.

Moreover, the new reserves are not mechanically multiplied
up into new loans and new deposits as predicted by the money
multiplier theory. QE boosts broad money without directly
leading to, or requiring, an increase in lending. While the first
leg of the money multiplier theory does hold during QE — the
monetary stance mechanically determines the quantity of
reserves — the newly created reserves do not, by themselves,
meaningfully change the incentives for the banks to create
new broad money by lending. It is possible that QE might
indirectly affect the incentives facing banks to make new
loans, for example by reducing their funding costs, or by
increasing the quantity of credit by boosting activity.(1) But
equally, QE could lead to companies repaying bank credit, if
they were to issue more bonds or equity and use those funds

to repay bank loans. On balance, it is therefore possible for
QE to increase or to reduce the amount of bank lending in the
economy. However these channels were not expected to be
key parts of its transmission: instead, QE works by
circumventing the banking sector, aiming to increase private
sector spending directly.(2)

Well. I feel safe.

They can hoard it all like dwarf gold but let’s keep letting them because….?

Appeal to tradition?

And funding cronies might make a system for the public worse… but its “aim” is here “for your own good” because you need an “intermediary” in your “transaction” as a People, because, remember, the Bank of ENGLAND, is NOT English, it is not nationalised, it is a private entity owned by very much non-English people. Would they try to ruin us?

On what grounds do they rule us and dictate what we must do with our human right, the fruit to our own labour?

These are the questions.

Along with: why do the BOE and the “commercial banks” point the finger at one another for who is ultimately responsible for ‘money creation’ in this nation? Who deserves the credit/blame? Can we get a list of names?

Blue box is also interesting but here’s just the first line: “One of the Bank of England’s primary objectives is to ensure
monetary stability by keeping inflation on track to meet the Government’s 2% target. ”

Can we elect a Government that makes it -2%? We can haz.

We have Death by a thousand QEs. There’s also the QE (free debt with purchasing power to the out-group) of welfare and other gibs. We’ve been bailing out the bankers since the 18th century. …With the bank itself. The biggest recipients of welfare are the financiers. 

Blood money of 2% every year from every citizen. On what grounds? And who is We?

“We” were invaded centuries ago. Cromwell let them back in. You don’t hear about much social unrest or moral decay before that point. Funny that.

Socialist spending is state-level QE. Since this devalues the currency by increasing “demand” for the same finite supply of goods. The illusion of abundance prior to every shortage.

I’m sure we’ll be gravy, mate. Become a minimalist, Amazon Prime will always be there to wipe your arse.

I’m just being hysterical, and stupid,, and paranoid. There is no proof whatsoever for any of these opinions and I shall just toddle on back to my kitchen now because anti-white anti-housewife sentiment is only okay when white men are doing it.

That’s the way to be great.

We fought wars so white men could slander white women in the name of national loyalty.

Sorry for inconveniencing your porn abuse schedule with my feminine rambling.

This article has discussed how money is created in the modern
economy. Most of the money in circulation is created, not by
the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the
commercial banks themselves: banks create money whenever
they lend to someone in the economy or buy an asset from
consumers. And in contrast to descriptions found in some
textbooks, the Bank of England does not directly control the
quantity of either base or broad money. The Bank of England
is nevertheless still able to influence the amount of money in
the economy. It does so in normal times by setting monetary

for “consumer confidence”

through the interest rate that it pays on reserves held
by commercial banks with the Bank of England. More
recently, though, with Bank Rate constrained by the effective
lower bound, the Bank of England’s asset purchase programme
has sought to raise the quantity of broad money in circulation.
This in turn affects the prices and quantities of a range of
assets in the economy, including money.

You trolls have a nice day, wherever you are.

Buy bitcoin.

Video: Debt is slavery

10/10 but…. yes? We have a plutocracy.

Corporations are more powerful than governments. They’re international superpowers, especially banks.

Literally….? They write the law, in fact. De facto they own us. They dictate by regulation which companies exist (violating right to labour, fruit of labour) and how (diversity quotas) to crush the competition worse than Communism. At least there you know who the enemy is.

Debt bondage. AKA debt slavery. Fractional reserve currency = the new form of human chattel bonds.

America refuted the concept of debtor’s prisons but technically all prison is one – “a debt owed to society”. It’s a way to keep them out of the breeding pool short of hanging.

Something like 97% of the dollars out there (digital or paper) are pure debt.

The Euro is literally founded on debt 100%. No production there, ever.

UK K-shift

I’ve never posted exact numbers, have I?

Let me show you your debt slavery.

70% extra taxes – the going rate for dysgenics. Oh, you’re paying for it.

45% top tax rate not including other stuff.

I include the calculations for the morons who’ll dispute maths.

70*0.45 = 31.5%

over a third of your time working is slaving away for people who don’t want to.

Like we do?

Sorry Susan, we’re not supporting your ability to watch Loose Women and bitch about your grandkids. Tough titties that you paid for wine and cruises over retirement savings. Guess you should’ve thought about that when you voted for Labour without waver the past half a century.

But wait, there’s more!

There’s a reason I’m so optimistic this country will literally run out of shekels before we can be replaced fully.

Millennial exhaustion!

Plan on a 50 year ‘career’?


15.75 years working like a slave because Barry the Boomer won’t get off his arse.

That’s right.

I am this way because of statistics and facts.

I crunched the numbers one day and the results were in, literally Hitler.

Can you use a calculator? When did you decide to become a shitlord?

Go Galt and grow your own food, you won’t eat litres of pesticide per year and you’ll have saved more money than if you ‘worked’ and got taxed to pay for food that will also be taxed. While supporting the EU. Where the companies are taxed. However, if you can get the fruit of their labour on steep sale, dehydrators are worth the money plus free seeds.

Also great for making bar fruit.

Better food, less money, more free time. Problem?

Look at every expense necessary for life like this. Through the filters of time and tax.

Do not fund your own replacement.

Now you catch my drift, back to UK official stats.
Yes, this is sustainable waste.

Don’t look at the statistics.
It’s immigrants, but blame the economy. For the economy.

“In 2005 the UK National Debt was less that £0.5 trillion.

But then came the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession.

The National Debt increased rapidly and went over £1 trillion in 2011 and over £1.5 trillion in 2016. At the end of March 2019 the National Debt was £1.80 trillion.

Obviously, they can’t do that again.

+50% in five years? Under the Tories? Fucking really?

11 years of total immigration flood, tripled national debt. Complete coincidence.

(Net immigration means nothing).

Odious debt must be repudiated. Exit tax the immvaders. Good enough for CA.

In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK National Debt in 2005 was about 38 percent of GDP.

But in the last ten years, in the wake of the Crash of 2008 and subsequent recession, the National has doubled to over 80 percent GDP, but is leveling out as a percent of GDP. At the end of March 2019 the National Debt was 84.6 percent of GDP.”

Thanks, Labour! Commies ruin economies.

And this is what they claim as debt, not the full sum.

As previously stated, we’re screwed.

Plus, at around 90% GDP drops anyway (known economic effect) because the populace strangely isn’t as productive…….


Turns out THIS is our socialist utopia.

War-time debt/GDP, what kinda war do you call this?

Austerity is a hilarious myth.

It’s right fucking there.

And note: 2009 debt/GDP is still under 50%, don’t blame Muh Recession.

Pensions are welfare, at least a UBI wouldn’t be ageist. It isn’t a military pension, you don’t earn national funds by existing. Breathing for 60 solar rotations isn’t a qualification.

Young people can’t marry, move out, have kids, because lazy bastards didn’t want to work for the last 40 years of their life, preferring to abort their kids or make immigrants pay for them. We all literally know people who’ve been retired longer than they worked, fiscally impossible to justify.

One lazy generation who didn’t even fight a war for us is disabling the future existence of our people and culture.

When the Boomers pass, this shitshow will really get on the road.

Comic: American socialism

By global terms, everyone in the West is The Rich.

White guilt doesn’t work. The working class now know the plan to replace them.

Socialists never want to ban luxury products, god forbid they put down the dumbphone.

A calculator in their hand they never use.

Mathematically impossible, like pulling up a bucket you’re standing in.

These people are your idols?

No True Socialist!

Most productive to least – that’s the ONLY kind.

Surely the greatest good involves avoiding malpractice, letting workers join a union if they want and avoiding PR gimmicks intended to inflate your personal stock but sure.

SURE, Mr Oak Tree.

As long as they get to define “greatest good” and it (((coincidentally))) lines up with their self-interest.

By coincidence.

Communal narcissists are the worst for the world.
If anyone starts bragging how they wanna ‘change the world’, the rest of us should legally be allowed to slap them.

I used to be that stupid too, I cringe when I think of it.

Naive but clever is a devastating combination.

Link: Common trafficking tactics, job bait

Men and women are trafficked everyday.

There should be warning about this in schools.

Schools practically deliver them by saying things like ‘follow every opportunity!’ and ‘don’t upset the interviewer’!

There should be hierarchy in legitimate work, yes, but not a huge difference in the balance of power.

This isn’t master/slave.

That only encourages (currently Boomer) elders to abuse their position.

Men also become targets for sexual harassment, serial bullies etc.

Your boss isn’t your parent. Nagging is unacceptable.

Human slavery would be nigh impossible without “libertarians” talking about prostitution as a right (it isn’t, that’s a fundamentally dishonest* spin on what a right is**).

What they don’t mention is that many of them have mental problems (so much for consenting adults), drug problems (force/blackmail, memory issues) and in American brothels the hookers are locked in and cannot leave.

Yes, the average household dog has more freedom. There’s no such thing as prostitution, only slavery. It is institutionalized rape of white men, children and women.

“But if they want it…”

Stockholm Syndrome, no.

The amount of gaslighting alone, combined with drugs, means no human would be capable of thinking clearly.

Remember MKUltra, humans are malleable mentally.

*in bad faith

**As a ‘service’,  it involves the market and by that logic, there’s also a market for bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia. Market doesn’t make right.

If you want to finger the true cause of American degeneracy, it’s “Israel is our greatest ally, let your daughter become a hooker” libertarianism.

Think that’s a non sequitur?

And who sells her the pharmaceuticals to do it?

Sex Bias in the US Code 1977

Snopes link a suspicious dead end.

Click to access cr12se9.pdf

But the Left loves women, it just wants them to have no legal recourse to the “she consented” lie of rapists (before DNA it was ‘I never touched her’). Because all women are presumed hookers and have no right to refuse, according to the likes of Ginsburg. Libel of a whole sex.

(This also applies to men and children).

If you want to track when the 50s high trust society died, this document

There is no libertarian argument for prostitution because if you can buy a person (as long as you call yourself a ‘customer’ – renting, or ‘pimp’ – owner/master), the Government already owns you and can therefore order you to do things as your pimp. Anything. The trauma, drug addiction and suicide outcomes of prostitutes prove it is to be discouraged severely on a medical level. 

This claims to be all about “opportunity” (p.102 on the doc, p.109 digital) but the purpose of the law is protection against predators.
If it doesn’t do that, it’s invalid rule.

Monsters wanting to remove the shackles of legal consequences from other monsters.

The law doesn’t give you rights, merely enforces them, we have natural rights.

To claim otherwise is to dub women or whoever else less than human. Only non-human animals can be owned (or rented), so arguments for prostitution (rich people rape) are actually anti-Darwin.

Men who think to defend this don’t realize, rape of men happens all the time. Even prisoners of war are usually forced to watch the rape of others before it’s their turn. Most rapists make absolutely no distinction between male and female, young or very old, you must assume you are next in these acts of precedent. Because you are.

Serial rapists happily rape the disabled, elderly, babies… dogs….

you think they’ll care you have a dick?

inb4 “there’s nothing wrong with it”

Plus, if you had a son, would you like your son to be a prostitute?

early p.98 is funny because it’s such a strawman

  • spending money isn’t illegal
  • spending stolen money is – because it’s stolen
  • sex isn’t illegal
  • buying/renting a human is illegal, whatever the purpose*

Don’t play dumb, scum.

According to B, as an owned human in a “prostitution” ring, they’re already kidnapped. Anything that happens to them …is already illegal.

Sex isn’t illegal. Raping a (sex*) slave is illegal.

Paying their owner isn’t less illegal.

And furthermore, it’s a market exchange – using public currency.

Totally the Government’s (and Tax Man’s) purview.