'Inclusive Debt Capitalism'

 Re. "Saga On Chairs" 

To understand the essense of the Schwab/Rothschild's "Inclusive Capitalism" one should go at least several centuries back in the history (which supposingly wouldn't not be a difficult task for Nigel Higgins, current Chairman of both my Barclays bank and Rothschilds & Co., who "joined Rothschild as a graduate trainee from Magdalen College, Oxford where he studied modern history"):

"In 1996, a New College of Oxford administrator discovered that King Edward IV of England, on July 18, 1461, had borrowed the modern equivalent of $384 (U.S.) from the school, paid back $160, but the remaining $224 was never repaid!", says Jeffrey O. Bennett. "That left 535 years [560 as of today] of accumulating interest on the $224 debt. ... 

The King Edward IV of England

That's what the administrator argued to the Queen of England, and assuming an interest rate of 4 percent per year, "calculated that the college was owed $290 billion! That is of course well more than most NATIONS produce in a year ..." So, later "he suggested a compromise figure of 2 percent, reducing the debt to around $9 million ... True enough, but there was no clear record of any agreement to repay with interest, and even if there were, who would feel obligated to pay 500 years later? Certainly not the Queen, and "the debt has not yet been paid."

In my opinion, this is yet another example of the badly famous "Law Of Barclays/Rothschilds" in action: "Do Not Pay Your Debts!".

According to my previous mini-researches, there can be UNLIMITED amount of reasons for avoiding paying debts by the top financial elites. And most of those reasons are fraudulent in their essense, as I already started to discuss in my "Debtism KILLS" post at its Disbelief In God section. So, what arguments are used this time?

Because the king (1) did not agree for paying any percentage, (2) did not 

agree explicitely for extending validity of the deal for hundreds years, and (3) the sum appeared unrealistically high even for the royal family (compare it with my case, where the debt is completely impossible to pay in full).

 

As for the latter (3), it's not a big problem, - the final price should simply approach the maximal value of the debtor's possessions. He or she should pay maximum of what is possible to pay. Fair enough, isn't it?

As for the rest of arguments, the problem is deeper than the Queen would want it to be:

There exist also other factors HM the Queen prefers not to mention:

(4) the fact of evident compromising the king's word and royal reputation in general, while (5) the action of taking somebody's money without promising any term for its return is a clear equivalent of open STEALING (no matter what words can be used for describing it).

The person who gave money to Henrix VI counted on the King's WORD (that is FAIR WORD by definition, isn't it?) based on the high standards of a Royal REPUTATION. In my case, I trusted to reputaion of the banking industry, and the fundamental feature of the bankers' business they advertize for centuries,- a fair returning client's money they took!

In both cases, those principles failed. And in both cases, the fact is:

Related CEOs simply do not pay their debts!

No matter what arguments are provided

(their Info-Walls cut the from it)

they JUST DO NOT PAY!

DO. NOT. PAY.

NO MATTER WHAT!!!

«You'll be in trouble if you do not keep your word» says Brunello Cucinelli, member of the Council for 'Inclusive Capitalism'. While not paying debt that is promised by official banking agreement with me is the breaking of the word! The Baclays bank changed the rules, replacing them with the ones I neither knew, nor signed formally. During last 21 YEARS its CEOs do not specify any particualar time for returning their debt to me. 

***

People often ask me "What was the sum of your original deposit in the Barclays bank?". And I know what stands behind such questions:

If the sum is small, forget it! The cost of efforts for demanding it exceeds the price of possible reward. And the whole story obviously does not worth people's time and attention. If, however, the sum is big, the chances of winning the case in the court with highly paid lawyers is great. The bigger the sum, the bigger possible profit of lawyers. And assumably, chances for success.  

What is more alarming, the Barclays CEOs can use the question to calm themselves with the illusion that situation is frozen at the point where it was 21 years ago, and still is under their control. In the worse scenario, they want to believe, it is always possible to settle my case at any time , - simply by paying off that initial sum (that is significantly smaller anyway than the resulting derivative debts their non-payment created for me during 21 years). 

Well, does the sum really matter? The essense of this story is the fact of Barclays' non-payment it to me, in principle!  Even if it was just one dollar (obviously, it was much more), what that supposed to change? The fact of existing the Barclays' non-payment?

It's not about some specific sum. The Barclays' non-payment destroyed the carefully balanced mechanism of my personal survival, independent of anyone, I created during all my life. 

Instead of a fee for communal services for my apartment that I could pay, there appeared the debt that I could not pay.

***

THIS POST IS CURRENTLY

UNDER UPDATING!

Please re-visit it at a later time!