I don't know how many people on this list bothered to listen to Nick
Clegg this morning.
I did. Michelle did. She tried really hard to phone in. But it was
the usual waste of time.
Clegg blithely prattles on about how you can phone in, e-mail him,
or text him.
Not one of these texts or e-mails is actually read out ... or even
referred to. So ... who knows what's happened to them? Just goes
into a very large bin, I assume.
It's just Cleggy being 'chummy' with Ferrari for 30 minutes, plus a
few callers being politely dismissed by Cleggy.
However, there was a slight benefit. It did cause me to create
something of a 'soundbite', which I sent into LBC Radio as an e-mail
last night. I post it below. I think it might be a good 'lever' to
explain the situation to anyone (friends, relatives, etc.)
It's not quite short enough to be a true soundbite/one-liner ... but
it's pretty close. It's not a lot to learn, because it all takes
place as a derivation of the very first question.
Here's the question:
"Why does a Government need to 'borrow'?"
That's the 'hook'. That can be expanded to: "Why does a
Government need to 'borrow', if it claims to be supreme?"
Here's the expansion:
If a Government must 'borrow', then it must be beholden to some
If it is beholden to some other entity, then it's not 'supreme' ...
the other entity is higher, and therefore 'supreme'.
Here's the conclusion:
Consequently, if the Government is not supreme, then why
should we take any notice of it? Why should we even vote for it?
Should we not, instead, be voting for the 'more supreme' entity?
That was it. That's what I sent. I hope you 'get it' from that
There's more, along the same lines. More
fuel that can be added to that argument.
The Bank of England received the Royal Charter in 1694. This was
awarded on the basis of a nod from the Government at the time.
Now ... if the Government can award a Charter to Create Money ... as
it most obviously could ... then why couldn't that same Government
create the money itself? Without the rigmarole of going via the
(We know the answer: "They are in league with the Banks, and always
were" ... that's why ... but that's the real answer, which they will
never admit to).
Then, there's more ... the IMF ... "International
Monetary Fund". Sounds grandiose, doesn't it? A fund of money
that is internationally available.
Errr ... no. Don't be fooled by the title ("Don't judge a book
by its cover"?)
Just like the Federal Reserve in Amerika ... which isn't 'federal'
(it's PRIVATE) ... and has NO RESERVES ... the International
Monetary Fund has NO FUNDS OF ITS OWN.
Fundamentally it's just a lady with a dog & a Fax Machine ... in
a room .... in a ginormous building ... in Washington DC ... the
lady currently being a Ms. Christine Lagarde. (Ms. Lagarde is
currently under investigation, by the French Police, for fraud,
If you check the write-up on Wikipedia,
you get the usual bollox, of course:
Countries contribute money to a pool through
a quota system from which countries with payment imbalances can
borrow funds temporarily.
Errr ... hold on a moment? EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET IS
BANKRUPT!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS 'PAYMENT IMBALANCES'!!!!! So
where does this "... contribute money to a pool ..." come
Answer. IT DOESN'T.
So, read on:
Through this activity and others such as surveillance
of its members' economies and policies, the
IMF works to improve the economies of its member countries.
There's the key ... highlighted.
From this it produces a 'Credit Rating', or 'Grading System' ... by
which Ms. Lagarde DICTATES what each country (e.g. the UK) can do -
in the form of 'money creation out of thin air'.
Now ... let's go back to the start.
If a Government allows itself to be DICTATED TO, then it must be
beholden to some other entity.
In other words, Ms. Christine Lagarde (who is currently being
investigated for fraud ... sorry ... just making sure you didn't
The IMF is led by a Managing Director, who
is head of the staff and serves as Chairman of the Executive
That Managing Director is currently Ms. Christine Lagarde (who is
currently being investigated for fraud)
So ... instead of voting for Cleggy, shouldn't we be voting for a
replacement for Ms. Christine Lagarde (who is currently being
investigated for fraud), and also the members of the Executive Board
... because, surely, -they- are obviously 'supreme', in this
land mass we call "The United Kingdom"?
(Just a thought)