ITV Leaders’ Debate & the Elephant in the Room

By Max Musson:

Debate 2As we all know, the forthcoming General Election will be largely irrelevant to the future wellbeing of the British people — we will after all simply be swapping ‘Tweedle-dum’ for ‘Tweedle-dee’ in an election that will almost certainly end in a Conservative led coalition or a Labour led coalition and in a continuation of fundamentally the same policies that have been so damaging to our nation over recent decades. Against this background the Leaders’ Debate which was broadcast by ITV yesterday evening was a ‘circus act’ in which the leaders of establishment approved political parties engaged in a two-hour slanging match that achieved very little except provide ‘entertainment’ of sorts and some competition for BBC’s regular Thursday evening political flagship, Question Time.

During the debate we saw David Cameron of the Conservatives debate a series of pre-arranged questions on fiscal policy, the National Health Service, immigration and opportunities for young people, with; Ed Miliband of Labour; Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats; Nigel Farage of UKIP; Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party; Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru and Natalie Bennett of the Green Party. The debate was conducted in such a way that none of the politicians was afforded the time necessary to properly explain their party’s policies in these areas and so it became a contest of sound bites and debate took place on only a very shallow level.

Interestingly, while Cameron and Clegg gave predictably so-so performances defending their record in office over the last five years, Miliband was simply awful – quite rightly shamed on occasions by the exposure of his failings as part of the last Labour government – but also hampered by his quite obviously choreographed and insincere body language, staring at the camera at every opportunity like a low-budget circus hypnotist. Nigel Farage performed adequately, although was disappointingly lack-lustre, while the three women leaders came over best, all three appearing sincere, but with the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon providing the stand-out performance of the night, projecting an image that was caring, feisty and confident. The SNP is not a racial nationalist party, being more traditional socialist than nationalist, and it is a pity that Nicola Sturgeon cannot broaden her mind to encompass the racial dimension of our current political situation.

The debate was however generally uninformative and will have done little to alert the public to the most important issues confronting our nation at this time. While Nigel Farage was not at his best in terms of performance – allowing the immigration debate to be conducted at a very superficial level in which he was on occasions wrong-footed by the female leaders particularly – he did broach the subject of the national debt, which was, as is usually the case, the ‘elephant in the room’.

Greed MachineWhile the other leaders argued the pros and cons of ‘austerity’ verses ‘public spending’, Farage pointed out that the national debt had doubled over the last five years under the Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition to such an extent that debt repayments are now greater than our annual expenditure on defence. Farage failed however to press home the implications of this and the impact of indebtedness upon our ability to provide the kind of services and life opportunities the public desire, and it was not until towards the end of proceedings that Nick Clegg chimed in with the statistic that next year we will as a nation pay £46 billion in interest alone on our national debt, an astounding figure.

At every mention of our mounting national debt, Cameron repeated the mantra that the coalition government had ‘halved the deficit’ and would ‘clear the rest of it’ during the next parliament, conflating in the public mind the ‘deficit’ with the ‘debt’ in order to give an impression of fiscal competence. No-one pointed out that the deficit is only the amount by which the debt is increasing and that the elimination of the deficit would still leave our colossal national debt unpaid and us with colossal annual debt repayments.

Furthermore, no-one took the final step towards unveiling the factor that is really crippling our economic performance the fact that government spending is financed using money that is ‘borrowed’ into existence through a banking system that has been enabled to conjure that ‘money’ out of thin air. Despite the usual references to ‘greedy bankers’, no-one thought to suggest that a better way of funding government expenditure would be for the government to print any money that might otherwise need to be borrowed and spend it into our economy, debt free!

Following such a reform of our banking system and an abolition of the fractional reserve system, our governments would be able to afford the much needed public investment that so many of the leaders spoke about and upon which their Keynesian policies depend, without the need to raise taxes and without incurring further public debt. However no-one thought to suggest such a radical step. That would be to undermine the financial power of those who sponsor our establishment political parties, and we couldn’t have that!

By Max Musson © 2015

# # # #

26 thoughts on “ITV Leaders’ Debate & the Elephant in the Room

  1. Well-written and I presume accurate – I couldn’t stomach watching the farce. May I just point out though that fractional reserve doesn’t seem to be the problem. That problem is the Jewish bankers that control the system of international finance and their attitude to debt – they WANT debt because debt gives them financial control of the economy. A government with a sound and responsible attitude could administer the present system.

    1. An honest government could administer the current fractional reserve system, but it would still be a flawed system open to abuse and it would be simpler to replace it completely with a full reserve banking system in which the quantity of ‘electronic money’ circulating is controlled by the Treasury and therefore the government, rather than bankers.

      1. Yes. The thing that worried me was that a reserve system may be backed by gold. If so, the people who have defrauded the country over generations might get real gold out of it. Instead of getting what they deserve.

        1. No, we don’t ever want to go back to the Gold Standard, that would be to play into the hands of whoever has accumulated the greatest quantity of gold, and we all know who that is! Better to have a fiat based currency with strict government controls on how much can be in circulation at any particular time.

          1. I suspect a gold standard is one possibility and if that were to occur it would be entirely out of our hands, ‘he who holds the gold makes the rules’. As we know the gold has gone and continues to go east so if those nations decide to back their currencies using gold there’s nothing we could do about it. The gold standard is not to be feared, at least the classical gold standard, the gold exchange standard was flawed from the start. Under the classical gold standard we had equilibrium, it would actually encourage nations to return to production rather than empty debt based financial services.

            China is now creating a gold exchange that is in direct competition to the LBMA, this has caused HSBC to close all of its gold vaults. Many people believe we could be witnessing the end of the LBMA. Whether we like it or not the east will dictate the future. The world cannot continue as it is.

      2. You may want to look into a group called Positive Money, if you haven’t already heard of them. They want to take the power to create money out of thin air away from the criminal banking class but they do not want that power to be given to the government for the simple reason that they will abuse it too, in fact they already do given that the existing system can only exist with their approval (bought and paid for political class). Positive Money want an independent body to control the money supply with the public having the final say on crucial issues, for example in order to enter into the illegal Iraq war the government needed money and simply borrowed it from the private banks but under the Positive Money system the people would have had the right to vote it down and stop them borrowing the money. I suspect had this system been in place the government would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to launch that illegal war, as the people would likely have voted no to creating the money the government needed to fight it.

        The biggest problem is the simple fact that all intuitions can be infiltrated and subverted, we’ve seen the left wing do this across all of our once great institutions. I don’t know how that can be prevented as people are generally corrupt, easy to manipulate, or can be controlled by having a skeleton in the closet.

        1. Fear not Folkvar, much thought has gone into developing the strategies and policies that we pursue and when we are in a position to influence fiscal policy, all of the current corruption will be swept away.

          1. OK I’m shooting from the hip here without checking on these points but

            1. is Positive Money all that it appears to be? As far as I recall they sat on notice of the then forthcoming HOC debate on Money Creation and Society 20 November last year, did they spread the word, did they recommend marshalling any MPs in particular to speak and present options for change, did they do anything? The whole event passed by without being noticed. Who stage-managed that? Where is the current day equivalent of 1965’s Henry Kirby MP?

            2. “classical gold standard” good, “gold exchange standard” bad. What distinction is being made here? Convertibility to domestic currency -vs- foreign currency exchangeability? Something else? Arthur Kitson in Chapter 6 of “A Fraudulent Standard” explains clearly how gold linking was able to be manipulated.

            Since 1971 the real currency linking has of course been oil, as in the petrodollar, which assures “US” global hegemony so long as commodities have to be purchased with USD and so the US may continue to export inflation. The oil for dollars -vs – regime protection deal brokered iirc by Kissinger with the Saudis aka Wahabbis is noteworthy.

            3. we want government to impose rules for relating money volume to increase in wealth (broadly) but we don’t want government making decisions on who GETS the money for infrastructure projects or any other purpose otherwise it’s central planning / communism and ineptitude/ scope for greater corruption from centralisation.

            4. I informally queried the predecessor to UKIP’s economic spokesman on the issue of money reform and the questions was repulsed.

            5. how much of the UK national debt (sic) comprises sterling borrowings from banks i.e. entities that create money on a multiplier basis, as opposed to recycling existing money? The former funds at least are capable of issuance by HM Treasury a la Bradbury, a la 2008 banks bailout without carrying an interest burden – in other words by Government itself monetising its own payment obligations. After all isn’t QE much the same – government promises to pay (sovereign bonds) are bought by central banks in exchange for ‘newly minted’ currency which government itself might have issued and thereby monetised direct?

            6. so far as I can make out currently the only people with any sustained profile on the internet that seem to entertain an honest discussion of the vices of the existing money system are Mike Montagne and Anthony Migchels. However the profered solutions of both appear wanting depending on who you happen to have read latest. Maybe the Icelanders will show us how, interesting developments underway there as also in Canada with some preliminary litigation over the Central Bank and its franchise to issue currency.

            Apart from the obfuscation from entrenched interests the whole debate is clouded with verbal and conceptual uncertainty, compounded by circulating cliches like “banks create money out of nothing” whereas (as Montagne states) they are interlopers hijacking the monetisation of executory obligations among others and charging interest for the privilege – the only thing of innate value they provide perhaps being their skill in deciding whether a prospective borrower is a good risk or not. There are rarified writings by F. Soddy, C.H. Douglas, J.K. Galbraith et al, but H. Belloc’s introductory book on economics lays out some common sense principles simply including for instance his argument of how interest is not per se usurious but is if the related loan is not employed in creating commensurate wealth as opposed to redirecting existing wealth to different hands.

  2. If you vote for the lesser of three evils you are still voting for an evil, nothing changes. Your vote is wasted.

    1. I can understand why you would feel the way you do MsBridget, but it is actually logical to vote for the ‘least worst’ party out of those that are capable of winning, if one is presented with a choice several ‘evils’.
      The important thing, is to make sure that voting is the smallest contribution that we make towards the political health and wellbeing of our nation. When posed with a choice between the lessor of several evils it is the duty of everyone to invest money, time and effort into changing that situation before our nation is destroyed.
      At present voting is the least effective thing that we can do in our efforts to change the way we are governed and we must work tirelessly until a viable nationalist alternative is created, complete with the Six Prerequisites required to achieve political power.

  3. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    I usually find very little to disagree with Max about but presented with a choice between a slimy liar from the Conservative Party and an outright Marxist traitor from the Liberal or Labour Parties I’d find it impossible to discern the “least worst”.

    Fortunately, we now have Ukip which is at least associated in the public mind with some sort of resistance to those things that are destroying our nation. By voting Ukip in large numbers we’ll be sending a sensible message to the establishment parties that the British people won’t allow their noses to be rubbed in the mire any more. Of course it would be hopeless to put any faith in a Party which is already allowing its Jewish immigration spokesman to pull its punches, but sometimes a chair leg can be used against an enemy even when a battleaxe would be

    1. You may be pleased Michael to find that you do not disagree with me on this issue. Sometimes it is very difficult to decide which is the ‘least worst’ candidate and I agree that when all of the candidates offer very similar policies, that decision can be impossible, but many people throughout the UK have a fourth or fifth candidate to choose from. At this general election everyone in England at least will have the opportunity to vote UKIP — a party that is far from perfect, but clearly the ‘least worst’ of those that have a chance of winning.

    2. Just heard on the BBC one lady from the W. Midlands, who was invited to listen to a brief spiel from Nigel Farage, and then say if she could vote for UKIP. “My head says this sounds good so give them my vote, but I couldn’t because half my friends would call me waycist!

      Maybe when her daughter gets mugged or otherwise enriched, she might summon the moral courage to stand-up to her silly, programmed ‘friends’.

  4. Regardless of people liking it or not.

    The fact remains. The political party that takes office still enforces laws. Every time a certain political party gained office over the decades they created new laws to the point now we find it almost impossible to speak out. They didn’t open up Gulags and redistribute wealth over night which hard-liners would of adored but ever time they take office sufficient changes are made.

  5. I haven’t watched the debate yet; but I like one thing: the debt is mounting and the traitors who are destroying our race might lose a grip on their dependents, and then you’ll see certain sections of the population in the state of mind where they’re teachable. At last….

    Sure … a lot of them will become ultra-leftists due to their anti-White programing. But some of them, some of them at least, will turn to the right side, the White side.

    The problem? Well, let’s look at this from another perspective. Imagine we’re part of the elite and we now have millions of people out there who are pissed off with the government. What would you do?

    If I controlled the media I would keep the entertainment going while I thought about solutions — maybe delay the problem for the next set of creeps who get in power. But now there’s rioting in the streets and people are hungry — they want change, answers, food….

    I would lead them in a spiritual direction (Russell Brand types) and create an ideology where we need to seek unity, get a left-wing government that loots the rich (like that would happen), and peacefully revolt through hedonistic, drug-fuelled Nazis where the number 1 enemy is who? The Nazis. The dam Nazis….

    They have the media power to do this, so what’s the solution? Well to any billionaires out there who are reading this, please set up a pro-White TV network. If there’s no Bilderburg types reading these words: we have to face facts and start building these types of things ourselves — we need the 6 prerequisites. Otherwise, as usual, the right will lose to the bastards who control us and are intent on our genocide. We need to start contributing to nationalist causes, right now!

    Too hard? Well the Joos do it and look at where they are….

  6. Walter Greenway

    - Edit

    I understand one the questions originally suggested for the panel was; What might be exhibited as a prime example of African ingenuity and contribution to science, in a new London Black Science Museum, if it were to be built?
    Obviously this would have been an unfair question to answer without prior notice.

  7. Could they not have the exhibition in an empty broom cupboard Mr Greenway.? No need for lighting either, nothing to see!

  8. One addition to my prolonged rant above which you were decent enough to let see the light of day.

    Comes a General Election, and yet another new ‘nationalist’ party mushrooms up to split the vote:

    I see NOT ONE WORD about monetary reform under their caption “Economy” and doubt if there is mention elsewhere on their website.

    Do people get what they deserve?

    1. This ‘new’ party is what used to be the southern, Ian Edward faction of the NF, who have recently ‘lost out’ to the northern, Kev Bryan faction in winning the support of the Electoral Commission and the right to use the NF name in future. It is disappointing that the people concerned on both sides of this dispute have failed to grasp the reality of their situation, that none of them are ever going to get elected. In that sense therefore, it does not matter what their policies are.

  9. Interesting, I didn’t know.

    Sadly their prospects do seem as described.

    Back to #1 of my 2015/04/09 at 10:40 pm, for various reasons I don’t trust the UK Column but like various portals/aggregators they have their uses.

    Here they discuss the deficit, national debt and Bradbury Pound:

    I wouldn’t recommend listening to the show but at 19’26 hear Justin Walker’s reservations re Positive Money / Green Party – “they are controlled opposition”.

    I bite my tongue, except to add that I thought the ‘Bradbury’ concept was last used in the 2008 banking crisis, not 1914, the later being electronic and the former paper.

    1. The Bradbury Pound was in effect a form of fiat currency and because its issue did not incur any government debt, thereby cutting banks and other financial institutions out of the equation, and denying them the opportunity to generate future profits from interest levied on the government debt, our nations financial institutions pressured our government to discontinue the issue of new money via the Bradbury Pound.
      Since the financial crisis of 2008, the British and American governments and others have staved off national bankruptcy by again issuing fiat currency, this time calling it ‘Quantitative Easing’ or QE, and again, because its issue deprives our financial institutions the opportunity to profit at the national expense, use of QE has only been approved of very sparingly and our financial institutions are pressing for its use to be discontinued at the earliest opportunity, making all sorts of spurious claims about financial ills that will befall us as a nation if we continue.
      Whether fiat currency is issued in the form of banknotes, treasury notes or electronic data entries, providing its issue is controlled so that any increase in the money supply is commensurate with increases in the value of goods and services available to be purchased, it will function perfectly adequately as a sound and reliable currency and if a switch to fiat currency is accompanied by a gradual transfer from fractional reserve banking to full reserve banking, the treasury and the government would be able to maintain a stable, inflation free and deflation free economy. Furthermore, it would be possible to repay the national debt and save ourselves c £50 billion in interest payments on that national debt each year.
      Such a move would however, and for obvious reasons, be most unpopular with our banks, with the current directors of the Bank of England, with the Bank of International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve Board, and all of the bought and paid for corrupt politicians they have in their pockets.

Comments are closed.