A Big Stumbling Block for Some

by Frederick Mann
(The Hesling Interview follows below)

Q. If I purchase a $90 "Profit Re-Imbursement" (PR), why should BIG so generously place a $600 "Lodgement" in my Player Account? Where does this money come from?

A. BIG International is a humanitarian organization whose founders include some wealthy people. See 'BIG International - Development Report 1'. One of BIG's main objectives is individual empowerment, particularly by providing a means for individuals to get out of debt. BIG shares some of its profits with participating Players. It's a profit re-distribution system.

If you decide to join BIG, please be sure to specify "2211694" (Build Freedom) as the Agent who introduced you.

Suppose that there are some very wealthy and powerful people who secretly use their wealth to control economic, political, and communication systems in order to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of us. Is it conceivable to you that there might also be a group of well-intentioned wealthy people who want to use their wealth to enable the rest of us to empower ourselves? Consider the possibility that this is exactly what the founders of BIG are doing.

Q. Furthermore, how does BIG generate the 4.25% monthly interest that I get?

A. This is partially answered in the 'Paul Hesling Interview' below. BIG operates in certain markets with a "core fund" which is a multiple of the aggregate of Lodgements. The returns received from these operations are sufficient to cover the 4.25% several times over. My personal investigation into this area -- sometimes called "Bank Debenture Programs," "Bank Roll Programs," "Blocked Fund Programs," etc. -- revealed that most such programs, particularly those promoted to the "general public," are scams. But there are a few legitimate operations known to a relatively small number of "insiders." I personally know some people who've investigated this area for several years. For an example of such a program operated by a well-established company with a solid reputation, refer to the website of Entrepreneur Holdings Management Trust.

I operate on the basis that the probability that BIG is genuine is high, based on satisfied customers, personal contact with some of the BIG people, personal contact with someone who has known some of the BIG people for many years, and the manner in which they're handling attacks from the UK Department of Trade and Industries -- see 'The BIG Attack and How It's Being Handled'.

Q. Why is there so much secrecy regarding so many aspects of BIG?

A. As can be seen from the DTI attack, there are "forces" that seek to destroy BIG. These "forces" may be associated with "some very wealthy and powerful people who secretly use their wealth to control economic, political, and communication systems in order to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of us" mentioned above. In order to survive and succeed, it's imperative that all BIG operations are conducted with degrees of privacy, secrecy, and security. For some background on these "forces" see The-Enclave.

Q. How safe will my money be with BIG?

A. It's always prudent with any proposition like BIG that you only put as much money into it as you can afford to lose. There are no guarantees that BIG will succeed. However, based on all the information available to me personally, I'm willing to bet some money and a great deal of time on the success of BIG.

Q. If there are such powerful "forces" determined to destroy BIG, what makes you think it has any chance of success at all?

A. Part of the answer is that the "forces" seeking to destroy BIG tend to use certain coercive government agencies, such as the UK DTI, that operate in fairly predictable ways. Not all the people in these agencies are willing to engage in "dirty tricks." Most of them are good, honest people... caught up in a bad system. The agencies have limited resources when it comes to performing "dirty tricks."

A second part of the answer is that the agencies cannot honestly attack an operation such as BIG. They have to resort to "dirty tricks." This is very evident from the nature of the DTI attack. BIG has the means to counterattack in the appropriate courts in a manner that could become very expensive and humiliating to "dirty-trick" agencies. I expect some exciting developments in this respect.

A third part of the answer is that, ultimately, any "forces" seeking to destroy BIG have to resort to violence. But in a world of rapidly advancing technology, violence is becoming less and less effective as a weapon. (An excellent book on this topic is The Sovereign Individual: How to Survive and Thrive During the Collapse of the Welfare State by James Dale Davidson & Lord William Rees-Mogg.) BIG can operate such that there are few visible physical targets coercive agencies can attack effectively.

A fourth part of the answer is that BIG has explosive growth potential, has been growing very rapidly, and is most likely to continue growing explosively. One result of this growth is that the means to organize affairs so BIG operations can be successfully insulated, fortified, and defended is also growing rapidly. From every attack, BIG people learn how to better insulate themselves against future attacks. As the number of satisfied BIG Players grows explosively, so does the extent of "favorable public opinion" -- a force to be reckoned with.

For an example of such a program operated by a well-established company with a solid reputation, refer to the website of Entrepreneur Holdings Management Trust. For a further discussion of this topic, see the Money Masters Seminars newsletter 'YOUR MONEY - YOUR LIFE - Volume 1, Issue 3'.

The Hesling Interview -- Part I

[Originally published on the BIG Discussion Forum]

This is the first part of an interview conducted with Paul Hesling over the phone in early August 1998. Prior to the action taken by the DTI in May of this year, Paul provided office services to Courtney. The interview was conducted by Eric Liddell an independent agent. Of course, Eric Liddell is not her real name as her privacy has to be maintained. The transcript of the tape has also been tidied up so as to make it more readable. Many of the questions were supplied by BIG's press dept.

EL: I guess we're doing this for information purposes right?
PH: Yes, I guess so.

EL: OK, I've got some written questions we can use so let's get to it. Why did you get involved in BIG?
PH: I got involved because I believe in freedom for the individual and BIG deals with that issue. It gives individuals an opportunity to use BIG to get out of debt, and in today's world, getting out of debt is the first meaningful step towards personal freedom.

EL: What was your background before getting involved with BIG?
PH: I was born in Yorkshire in 1960, went to school, got some O and A levels, worked in an architects practice, then an oil factory (if you’ve never smelt sheep wool oil you haven’t lived) and then moved to London. In the 1980’s I spent 5 years in a radical marketing organisation and that's where I began working in the area of personal freedom. I learnt a lot there.

EL: Why is BIG a humanitarian organisation?
PH: I can only give you my reasons on this one. BIG is owned by each player, so I guess there could be a different answer to this from each of them. For me however it’s to do with personal empowerment. There’s a great thinker and visionary of this century called Buckminster Fuller who died only a few years ago. I’d recommend anyone to read his book “Critical Path” written when he was in his 80’s. It’s full of wonderful, stimulating ideas and perceptions and one that sticks out for me is when he says, and I’m paraphrasing here, something like; “The only way through for humanity is the empowerment of the individual”. I don’t know if he used the word empowerment but that word sums it up for me. I looked up the word “empower” in the dictionary and it said “to give power or authority to”. I see it as individuals empowering themselves. I also looked up the word “humanitarian” and it says “concerned with human welfare and the reduction of suffering”. My current view is that the route cause of 99% of the suffering and injustices in the world are a result of a corrupt money system. BIG offers the individual an opportunity to remove the influence of that corrupt money system and take the first steps towards financial freedom. That’s how I would define BIG’s humanitarian status.

EL: Are you saying that if everyone had a lot of money from BIG then the world would somehow magically transform into a better place?
PH: I don’t know how the world would look but I think it’s a project that’s well worth the effort to try out. It's the right direction to head in.

EL: The DTI have implied that BIG is a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scam and that it therefore should be closed down in the “public interest”. What is your response to this?
PH: I guess if I worked in the DTI and looked at BIG I might well come to the same conclusion. My view is that most people’s frame of reference regarding money is limited, and I include many of the people who work at the DTI. I’m still learning so what I say here relates to my current level of understanding.

Given the limited information that BIG puts out in this area it’s not surprising that many people have assumed that money from today’s players goes to players that came in 1 year ago and so on. But if you look at the figures, then the time frames show that this is not true. Many people can set up a money snowballing scheme but BIG is not the way to do it effectively. The whole object of a fraudulent money snowballing scheme is to turnover a lot of cash as quickly as possible and then leg it to some tropical island with all the money. This is not what is going on with BIG so I have always felt that given time, and I have seen BIG working effectively for two and a half years, this “robbing Peter to pay Paul” theory can be shown to be untrue. There is a problem with this however as those in authority will always question what is a suitable period of time to prove this. As each month goes by, they think that more people are going to end up losing out.

EL: Is that what they mean by "public interest"?
PH: I find the public interest point fascinating. Who is the public and who defines what is in, and what is not in their interest? The DTI would argue that it is not in the public interest for large numbers of people to lose money. I would agree with that. But in the case of BIG, no-one has lost any money, no-one has complained and all financial commitments have been met. In fact, all money lost has been due to the intervention of the DTI and their acquisition of funds that were in the post. So you could definitely argue that the DTI are not in the public interest as they have, on several occasions, hiding behind the phrase “public interest”, lost hundreds of thousands of pounds of individuals money. This is the ultimate irony, though I’m sure the tens of thousands of people who have lost out in this way to the actions of the DTI couldn’t give a fig about irony.

Also, thousands of people lose money every day by backing losing horses and losing stocks and currency price movements. This is okay with the DTI. The DTI does not close down bookmakers or stockbrokers because, I would suggest, the government gets it cut. Many families are ruined by gambling on a regular basis. Do we therefore ban gambling? No, we say that the individual is responsible for the losses, which seems correct to me.

Even the arguments against money circulation schemes are thin. Let’s suppose that money circulation schemes could definitely proved to always fail – and up to this point they haven’t. In fact, the UK’s national pension scheme is a money snowballing scheme, plain and simple and I’m sure that the DTI would argue that it hasn’t failed. However, even if it were proven that they always fail, why can an individual not be allowed to place his/her money into such a scheme? If an individual has £100 in his/her pocket he/she should be allowed to do with it what he/she wants. They could back a horse or football team, buy some records, go out for a meal, buy some books, or put it into a money circulation scheme. It’s a basic removal of your human rights if some nanny mentality authority uses law to stop you doing with your money what you want to. You may be cold and so choose to burn your money to start a fire. The point can’t be made strongly enough . . . it’s your money and you should be free to spend it as you choose.

Professor Patrick Minford, one of Margaret Thatcher’s economic advisors has made the same point. In fact, he went as far as to show, using a computer model, that money circulation schemes can work as the national pension scheme illustrates. These factors point to one conclusion. It’s not about money circulation schemes not being in the public interest, it’s about the fact that the banks do not have control over the monies in such schemes and therefore implement laws carried out by such bodies as the DTI to subdue and kill off this type of scheme.

EL: Why do you think they do that?
PH: Well, as these schemes grow, they would gradually remove the power of the financial institutions to control each individual’s money. And they need to control as much of the money (they are going for 100% and will get to this figure soon) as possible to maintain the deception of financial integrity which they have foisted on the public for so long.

One solution is to let free choice and personal responsibility enter the frame. The DTI could come up with a disclaimer or warning notice for any scheme that they were uncomfortable with. A possible example could be:

EXAMPLE OF A DTI WARNING The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) does not advocate or approve of this business in any way. We classify this business as a money circulation scheme although we do not have sufficient evidence at this stage to prove this or establish the methods used by this organisation. Therefore, should you commit funds to this scheme and the scheme subsequently fails, the DTI will not be wasting taxpayers money trying to re-coup your losses. You must therefore be aware that there is no chance of the recovery of any of your assets should this business fail. Do not place more money into this scheme than you can afford to lose. You have been warned.

This is only an example but it would work. The DTI would not have to worry about these types of schemes anymore and members of the public would be fully warned of the situation.

EL: But they wouldn't do that would they?
PH: I doubt it. Many financial institutions would lose their grip on the public spending purse and that would spell disaster for them. So they have to create the illusion that you can spend your money freely. But in reality you can't. If they're going to continue to leach a living of you, they have to make sure your full of money and you don't start throwing your cash into areas they can't control.

EL: OK if, as you assert, it is not a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scheme, then how is the money generated?
PH: If I had a fiver for each time I’ve been asked this question I could probably meet all of BIG’s financial commitments for the next 100 years. We’ve relayed this question to BIG many times and the answer that comes back is that it has nothing to do with speculation on stocks or shares, futures and options or currency speculations.

EL: OK, you’ve said what it isn’t but can you say what it is?
PH: Yes. To the best of my knowledge here’s how the money is made. But I have to say that informing you about it is unlikely to be of much help to you. What’s likely to come up for anyone reading this is that I am mad, that BIG is mad and that anyone who thinks that what is stated here is true, is madder than all of us put together. So, as long as you don’t mind being thought of as some daydreaming financial lunatic, here goes.

By the way, I've got to say again that this is my current level of understanding. I'm talking here about one area of finance and I'm pretty sure that BIG is involved in many more areas.

The world’s banks are effectively bankrupt. They have little real money. By real money I mean cash, the liquid stuff that’s in your pocket every now and then. The vast majority of the so-called assets of banks are held in the form of debt – bits of paper that will be repaid, with interest, at some point in the future. I’m not going to go into every aspect of how banks create money out of thin air and then charge you interest on it. Suffice it to say that at the highest levels of banking, the world’s top 250 banks, there is a tremendous requirement for liquid cash. By tremendous requirement I mean hundreds of billions of dollars. Where do they get this cash? From people who’ve got it. Who’s got it? Well BIG have quite a bit of it and they need it too. It’s generally not worth it for a bank if the punter they’re talking to has less than $250 million dollars in cash. And I do mean cash. The punter must have liquid readies available today. If the punter has that sort of money available, then he can make tremendous returns by effectively lending it to the bank.

EL: OK, but BIG gives players over 300% return per year. How is that done?
PH: You have to take into account gearing. Certain financial institutions will lend you money if they know that that money is to be used to only buy these instruments in the way described above. These financial institutions are barred from directly getting involved in this way so they make money by lending it to individuals who can get involved. There are strict guidelines on this drawn up by the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in Paris. Using gearing of this type, it is not uncommon for someone who is moderately active in this area to make over 5000% return each year.

EL: You’re kidding me.
PH: Well, I might as well be, because you are going to find it very difficult to verify any of the details I have given.

EL: Why is that?
PH: Consider; if a banks major customers and investors found out that they could make several hundred or thousand percent return per year, do you think they would be interested in buying the range of instruments that they currently buy that give them maybe 10% to 15% a year?

EL: I see your point. So how do you prove it?
PH: You can’t. Any bank involved in this area will deny that they trade in this way and if you are a player in this game who starts to blab then you can be easily cut out of the deals.

EL: Why don’t people know more about this?
PH: They do. I guess there is a relatively small number, say tens of thousands, of people who know about these instruments. But in this case, knowledge doesn’t make the difference. If you don’t have the money you're just messing about with a financial daydream.

EL: This must be risky though?
PH: I think it can be risky for new players. Because the returns are so massive, people get lured into these programs by people who know about them, but can't actually pull them off. It can be an easy step to then just run off with an investors money and the investor has no come back as no one will step forward to say that these types of instruments are traded. But there is no risk for BIG as they've been playing this game for many years. All the trades are backed by specific banking guarantees. When you buy one of these instruments, you know you are going to make a profit because there is a purchaser already lined up to buy that instrument at a higher price. You cannot lose.

EL: Surely people in the DTI know about this?
PH: I think some of them do but they certainly don't want anyone to know that they know. If the information got out then the embarrassment to some MP’s and business leaders would be considerable and we, the manipulated masses, have to be kept in line believing that the people in financial authority are somehow beyond reproach. My view is that these instruments form another part of the financial enslavement of humanity. The banks use them to further extend their levels of control over your finances (a near 100% control) while BIG uses them to give you a choice about how you want to control your money.

EL: So are you saying that BIG is using a corrupt system for the good of its players?
PH: I guess that’s true, yes. That system has always been used against you because in the end it is you who pays for these debt instruments. BIG simply makes use of it and allows the man and woman in the street, the individual, to benefit from it if he or she so chooses. It’s taking a corrupt line of finance and, through individual free choice, creating the possibility of something good to come out of it. We all pay for these instruments anyway. The mountain of debt that is accruing against each one of us will, unless the corrupt practices of the system are removed, basically enslave you and your children in perpetuity. A small number of people will carry on running the financial show. Most people will have bought the myth that they are enjoying financial freedom when in fact every penny they spend will be controlled. You step out of line and wham, your credit cards will go and your loans will be called in until you get back in line. I may be exaggerating a bit here but this is where we are headed. That’s not what I call freedom. Fortunately I’m not alone and more and more people are waking up to what’s going on.

EL: Why do you think the DTI is so keen to stop BIG?
PH: Well, the DTI say that BIG should be closed because it is not in the public interest and I suppose many of the DTI people believe that to be true. They assume that at some point in the future there will be a shortfall in the amount of money available and that hundreds of thousands of players will lose everything they handed over to BIG. However, I would suggest that at the highest levels of the DTI and the British Government, they want to stop BIG not because it will fail, but because it will succeed. Consider, if you have a few million people totally out of the controls of the financial system, they are going to be very difficult to coerce this way or that. They will be independent, free people and governments fear these people more than anything else.

EL: Do you think this would be a good situation?
PH: Yes. I guess I'm a libertarian in that I believe in an ever reducing role for government and an ever increasing role for personal responsibility. I’m keen to experience what it would be like living amongst people who are entirely free of all financial debts. I think you would have a group of empowered people who would enjoy more periods of wisdom and satisfaction than is currently enjoyed under the present financial control, debt system.

EL: So what do you think is the purpose of government?
PH: I don’t know. Has any government ever stated what its purpose is?

EL: Well, they tell you what their policies are going to be.
PH: Yes, but in my book that is not a purpose. To me, a purpose is the context in which all the content takes place. The content would be the policies, but what is the context? Without a context all the content is meaningless as there is nothing against which you can measure the effectiveness of the content. I mean one context could be “to make everyone happy”, another could be “to make everyone in government happy”. It seems to me, even though I haven’t seen it stated or written down anywhere, that the purpose of government is to maintain government.

EL: Why do you say that?
PH: Well, there’s this little saying I know; “The physical universe never lies”. What is, is. What is so is so. You get the gist. If I look at what goes on with governments they always have more governments after them and so on. That’s the way it appears to me. Most politicians are so busy being political that they forget what their purpose is.

EL: Do you have a context for governments?
PH: Of course (laughter). I feel the best context for government actions would be “the empowerment of the individual” the same context I have for BIG. However, there's a major problem with that context for any government. Let’s suppose that a government is brilliant at empowering individuals. For example, it transforms the education system so that instead of giving students knowledge, students gain the tools they need to acquire knowledge on any area that interests them. They foster a spirit of questioning rather than blind acceptance of established thinking. I would liken current schooling to giving people a lot of fish to feed them (rotten fish at that), when what they really need is a fishing rod so they can feed themselves when necessary. What would happen if you started to grow more and more people who were of independent mind and spirit, who operated with responsibility and integrity and who knew that they were the author of their lives as opposed to victims? Here’s what I think would happen; you wouldn’t need a government anymore. And given that the unwritten context of government is to perpetuate government, you’re unlikely to see the “empowerment of the individual” figure very highly on their list of priorities. I don’t mean this is a conscious act on the part of governments, it’s just implicit within the way government handles it’s own survival.

EL: Do you think that governments simply want more control over people’s lives?
PH: Yes. I think it’s just a natural result when you operate without a clearly defined context. You see there is only one way in which you can control people. You lie to them.

EL: What do you mean by that?
PH: Well, consider the following scenario. If you take on a new recruit you need to train them in what you do. It may have taken you 10 years to learn what you know, but your new recruit could probably be taught all of it in say 3 months. What happens if you do that? You run the risk that after 3 months, that person may take what you’ve given, see something new and leave you to go and develop their new idea elsewhere. The fear of that happening is what starts the impulse to be economical with the truth. This is often seen in large organisations where office politics can reign supreme. You tell the truth to someone and you empower them to a point where they may no longer need you. Lie to them and you can keep them stuck and under control.

EL: So all governments lie?
PH: Not all the time, but generally they can’t help it. If they told the truth about everything we’d realise pretty soon that we don’t need them.

EL: Do you think we should get rid of governments?
PH: No. But defining a proper context for them would go a long way to making them more effective and measurable.

EL: What do your friends think of what you do?
PH: What friends? (laughter).

EL: OK, we'll leave that one. The coverage of BIG in the Mail On Sunday has never been positive. What are your opinions on this and on the writer of these articles, Tony Hetherington?
PH: Actually myself and Mr Grant met Mr Hetherington after the court hearing on the 8th of July. It’s the first time I’ve met him and he seemed a pretty straight forward, down to earth bloke. We must have chatted for about half an hour and he raised some good points. Unfortunately he failed to include any of them in his 12th July article which I felt was a lost opportunity.

EL: What points did he raise?
PH: He spoke mostly to Mr Grant but at one point we were discussing whether BIG was a scam or not. I mentioned that if it were a scam, would we be here listening to court rulings? If we were scamsters then we would have flown the coup a long time ago with the money. His response was interesting. He said that he didn’t necessarily think it was a scam but that we were trying to prove some philosophy about money. I commented on this and said that if you feel that way, why don’t you raise it in your next article. But he didn’t (laughter).

EL: Do you have any idea why he didn’t mention this?
PH: You’d have to ask Mr Hetherington about that but I guess it’s not deemed racy enough for your average Mail On Sunday reader. Obviously if he did start puzzling about this or that then it would show that there were some question marks against the proceedings and that is probably deemed to be bad for the authorities. Who knows, maybe he’ll come out with all sorts of observations and start a tremendous debate, but don’t hold your breath. But I also think he's sitting on an incredible story. He probably doesn’t see it that way. I mentioned to him that the reason BIG was apparently being wound up was not because it didn’t work, but because it did. I would have thought any journalist worth his salt would dig around into that one but not yet for Mr Hetherington.

Further sections of this interview will be released in due course.

[Regarding "lying to control people," see #TL20A: The Anatomy of Deep Techniques. For additional relevant information see also #TL07B: The Nature of Government.]