The UK media keep using the terms "quantitative easing" and "printing money" as a way of justifying what central banks are doing. Of course, we are meant to believe that it is the respective elected Governments which are in charge. But everybody knows of the "global elite". My question is how best to use the web to counteract on millions of screens what is agreed in boardrooms and on yachts by an estimated 6000 individuals.
We, the taxpayers, are trying to make sense out of a "credit crisis" that is actually a "cash crumble". So in the UK, we are running an online petition called "Stop the Cash Crumble to Equalize the Credit Crunch." It is targeted at the Treasury Select Committee whose public meetings I have frequently attended. The request is to compare the share of Cash, created free of interest by the State, with the share of Credit, created out of thin air, and at interest, by banks.
In the wake of this process of trying to make things make sense, I was asked for an explanation of "quantitative easing" that doesn't exactly "roll off the tongue", as news presenter Jon Snow said last night. Thus it occurred to me to check Wikipedia. I have long stopped my subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica and enjoy using Wikipedia instead.
After having read Creating a World without Poverty - Social Business and the Future of Capitalism by Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Muhammad Yunus, I was so inspired that I also began to edit entries on Wikipedia. But when I noticed how the term "social business" had been hijacked by someone who is clearly not as inspired by the implications as I am, I began to realize that there is a political element to the definition of terms and of contexts.
Thus I was not too surprised to find "quantitative easing" in Wikipedia, albeit as a stub. So I added my comment in as factual a way as possible, besides links to two of my blogs. I will be curious to see how the anonymous person who wrote about the Central Bank of Japan, or the anonymous editor of Wikipedia might respond, if at all.
But that is politics: the game of power and control. I guess we can only master it appropriately, if we can control ourselves and have full power over our own thoughts, feelings and information.
Maybe we need to create more and more "information vessels" as contexts for "meaningful information"?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy D
This is the second time I've read your article today Sabine. I think I understand it a bit better this time. But I can't be sure.
I'm all for "...counteract[ing] on millions of screens what is agreed in boardrooms and on yachts by an estimated 6000 individuals."
and "Creating a World without Poverty", and "...creat[ing] more and more 'information vessels' as contexts for 'meaningful information'?"
2 - Sabine K McNeill
Many thanks for trying to understand, Cindy, for there is a lot that may be new to you:
1. how the 'nasties' take control of critical entries in Wikipedia to maintain myths
2. that the central banks who are behind the finances of our world are unaccountable and private and that the CIA plays a violent role in that; see Zeitgeist the Movie
3. that we have to dispel the myth that our governments run or influence our economies
4. how the media play the role in creating and maintaining such myths where only the web can counteract.
Hope that helps you understand my points.
Sabine
3 - Roger Nowosielski
I'm in perfect agreement with you on all points, Sabine, especially #3. Global corporations have been usurping political power since mid-eighties, the Reagan deregulation era, despite what many apologists on this site and elsewhere are trying to tell us - about the level playing field or the invisible hand - as though we were still beholden to the early, primitive stages of market economies.
The potential created by the Internet to counteract the forces of disinformation is indeed important, in light of which your first point (concerning Wikipedia)is very well taken. It's a very useful tool in a great many cases, and a democratic one, but perhaps there should be some critical oversight as to the accuracy and general integrity of the material that gets posted there. Have you tried to contact the founders?
The problem, of course, lies deeper. For many people, it's a replacement for the traditional means of getting information and education - such as books or scientific journals - which runs the risk of pseudo-information/knowledge parading for the real thing.
A very nice and snappy article,
Roger
4 - Roger Nowosielski
Sabine,
"Quantitative easing." That's surely doublespeak.
Have they forgotten George Orwell? Shame on you, Brits!
5 - Sabine K McNeill
Thank you, Roger!
I think 'doublespeak' is putting it mildly, and I do wonder who invented the term! To define it as a 'tool of monetary policy' and relating it to the Bank of Japan, as it says in Wikipedia, is just not of 'encyclopedic quality' in my view.
I now checked the link to the Guardian explanation where 'economic truth' is spoken - again wholly incorrectly in my analysis.
What a great idea to contact the founder! It encouraged me to go to the Talk page, especially if this article creates interesting comments like yours!
But then I also read this piece on Wikipedia and the CIA, and I let you come to your own conclusions...
Sighingly yours,
Sabine
6 - Cindy D
Sabine,
I'm having a little trouble understanding how you discriminate between fact and fiction. I find it troubling that you would refer me to Zeitgeist the Movie, which is basically a piece of conspiracy propaganda.
The link you posted at #6 leads to, among other things, "evidence" or diatribes about the Jew haters at Wikipedia, the Jew haters at Penguin books and the Jew hating criminal author Patricia Cornwell. When I google this info on Cornwell I find that not only Cornwell, but her lawyers, judges, and Bush are all in on this anti-Jewish conspiracy.
Yet, you don't sound like a conspiracy theorist. Am I missing something?
7 - Sabine K McNeill
Dear Cindy
I agree, it's getting more and more difficult to discriminate between fact and fiction, but it is equally difficult to distinguish 'good information' from mis- and disinformation.
In my view, generalizations and categorisations are the easiest way of mis-informing. You are welcome to categorise Zeitgeist the movie as conspiracy propaganda, but then we need to agree on the term conspiracy propaganda.
I agree the author of the article on Wikipedia and CIA is rather verbose. But what he writes about Wikipedia and the CIA was for me interesting and new.
Who cares whether I sound like a conspiracy theorist or not? I am a systems analyst and a mathematician, and what matters is what you think, feel and write!
Sabine
8 - Cindy D
Sabine,
It may be difficult to distinguish between fact, fiction, misinformation, disinformation and the like, but it's necessary, for me anyway, to give it my best shot. Using credible, trustworthy sources is one way of trying to accomplish this.
I cannot re-watch Zeitgeist the Movie right now because my high-speed connection is down. But, as to my generalization about it, I recall even the maker put in a disclaimer that the facts were grossly interpreted. Said something to the effect that it wasn't made to be believed but to...well, I don't really know what the point was, inspire belief in a grand conspiracy is what it struck me as.
...what matters is what you think, feel and write!
It only matters to me if you're credible.
9 - Cindy D
I'll recommend Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, if you haven't seen it, as a credible source for how propaganda is disseminated.
10 - Sabine K McNeill
Oh, Cindy, how do we decide whether a person whose writings we read is credible? And why would we want to 'believe' somebody else when we can make up our own mind?
I need to decide to sleep for now... Hope your connection will be up soon again. Where on this planet do you have fast and slow connections at the same time?
S
11 - Cindy D
lol I have a back-up dial-up.
12 - Cindy D
Sabine,
...how do we decide whether a person whose writings we read is credible?
Well we could ask things like, where does this person obtain information?; is the information referenced?; does this person have a reputation (particularly amongst opponents would be good) for being accurate?
Do mathematicians produce any scholarly work that is referenced? I would think you would know how to evaluate a source.
And why would we want to 'believe' somebody else when we can make up our own mind?
Well, the point isn't to believe someone else and not make up our own mind. The point is, rather, to obtain actual facts to use in making our own evaluation. If we have nothing more than a jumble of disinformation, misinformation, and facts all tossed together without critical examination...what can be the value of the opinion we would form?
13 - Sabine K McNeill
Excellent points, Cindy. Thank You!
I guess I best refer to my web presence:
a) my 'professional life with zest':
3D Metrics, my company
b) my 'social life with meaning':
the Forum for Stable Currencies I've been organising at the House of Lords and my Forum blog.
This article is like a pinnacle of everything relating to b, for the more I look into this whole money thing, the more I get appalled, amazed, horrified and thus potentially feeling completely powerless. But I don't want to have that effect on others. If anything, I've always wanted to empower others, certainly by organising and publicising events. Next, I want to do that with web services. Meanwhile I express my thoughts in writing.
Sighingly yours,
Sabine
14 - Roger Nowosielski
Sabine,
I don't think you have to apologize. I can't speak for Cindy of course, but it seems to me she took your remark (#8) out of context. When you say "what matters is what you think, feel and write!" I took it to mean to refer to the importance of people expressing themselves (as we all search for truth), and not speaking of yourself in particular - least of all trying to justify and or excuse your own thinking for not exercising your critical faculties. So if that was your meaning, and I believe it was, than you have nothing to apologize for. All of us, if we're honest with ourselves, that is, are groping and searching. And will continue to do so to the end of times.
By the way, have you seen anything on the Solari website concerning the possibility that this financial crisis, or "slow-burn" as Ms. Fitts calls it, is orchestrated? It's almost beyond one's imagination that all these financial giants (even BofA) would suddenly fold like a deck of cards. Let me know if you'll run into something interesting.
Roger
15 - Cindy D
Re#14
Sabine,
Thank you for the links (the 1st isn't working at the moment, I'll try it later). The 2nd I had been to as soon as I read your article (via the link at your name above your article).
I found some interesting information there. I wish I could understand what you do about the monetary system.
All of us, if we're honest with ourselves, that is, are groping and searching. And will continue to do so to the end of times.
I think what Roger said there is true. Sometimes though, I have found it helpful when someone else takes me seriously enough to question what I say or do.
16 - Sabine K McNeill
Dear Cindy
I'm new to BlogCritics and I had a hard time getting my links to match the comment policy. In that process I may have forgotten the www for 3D Metrics. Sorry!
What I'm doing is just raising awareness or spreading the word. I'm motivated by one fact that I was given in 1981: 1.7% of humanity are responsible for the arms race. That includes the financiers. Since then I learned about how money is created and distributed and who benefits.
I'm also using an online petition targeted at the Treasury Select Committee (House of Commons, London) to get them to 'wake up'. If they understood what I know, they would think and act differently.
Roger,
Your article about Fraud: What's Next? spurred me to spell my expectations out. So watch this space.
Yes, I have the strong sense, too, that the whole thing is orchestrated. The goal is one world government with one central bank and a single global currency.
But people will only be able to 'object' if they UNDERSTAND the implications.
See you both on-line again!
S
17 - Cindy D
This person has gone to a lot of trouble in debunking Zeitgeist. I can't vouch for her credibility, but I don't have to because she provides references for every point, making it easy for any reader to check what she says.
18 - Cindy D
Sabine,
Let me say though, since I am watching it now. I greatly appreciate the problems raised in the first 15 minutes of Zeitgeist, through the imagery. I think that series of images is a good representation of what I myself find wrong.
It's very powerful in that I would expect that imagery would affect many people the same way. And that's why I find it all the more disturbing to see where the film wants to take the viewer.
I have carefully studied a number of cults and I find they have something in common. They play on a person's angst or need for relationship. They use techniques to exploit these feelings. That is what I think is done in Zeitgeist.
19 - Roger Nowosielski
Sabine,
You're much more knowledgeable about these matters than I am, at least when it comes to finding the sources. Could you refer me to an in-depth article regarding the history of the Federal Reserve or a Central Bank. I came across a piece a while back concerning it being a non-governmental entity, but for the world of me I can't find it. The entries in the Wikipedia are not very helpful. They hedge things and don't get into the subject matter.
Roger
20 - Mark Eden
See Greider's Secrets of the Temple for some history. It's a book rather than an article but well worth the read.
Mark
21 - Roger Nowosielski
Thanks, Mark.
22 - Sabine K McNeill
Cindy
Look at this part of the Zeitgeist video where a law case from 1969 is referenced, and where John Perkins talks about his job as an 'economic hitman'.
Roger
TheMoneyMasters dot com know a lot and Stpehen Zarlenga from the American Monetary Institute.
Who "Owns" the Fed? takes you further on my blog.
I also have an article on the Bank of England Nominees, but am only allowed 3 links per comment. Therefore do listen to Congressman Dennis Kucinich on "federal" in the Federal Reserve.
Sabine
23 - Roger Nowosielski
Thanks, Sabine,
By the way, Kucinich is a smart cookie, at least some his his advisors. At first I thought his ideas were outrageous, less so now. To bad he doesn't have the charisma.
Thanks for the info and I'll be in touch.
Roger
PS: You might think of writing a comprehensive article (or a series of articles) for BC on the intricacies of the banking system. For most of us, it's shrouded in mystery and you seem well qualified to write on this subject. I, for one, would welcome it. We need to demystify it.
24 - Cindy D
Sabine,
Thanks, I'm looking at that.
25 - Cindy D
Sabine,
So far, here's what I think. Some of that information makes sense to me, insofar as I'm already aware of it from sources I believe are reliable. So I see, what I would call, some facts there.
I've tried to find out more about John Perkins--who he is, what anyone else has to say about him, what else he has written. I'm finding I think some of his detractors are misguided. So, it's not been much help. In general, I didn't get anywhere.
I don't have enough information or background to understand what is true or false there. I'd need a whole knowledgeable community to help me sift through even that 10 minute clip.
So, I have to go on the only thing I do know. Peter Joseph is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has already made one very manipulative film, in my opinion. Does this mean nothing he says is true? Of course not. It just means that I can't rely on his judgment. Why should I begin to look for the truth from someone who's already demonstrated he manipulates it (and people). If I can't find evidence elsewhere to substantiate or refute what he might say, then it's just information... It doesn't help me form an opinion.
I agree with some of the ideas there. And again, it's sort of disturbing, because if I were not to remain critical, his explanations would be very seductive.