THE GOLD STUFF YET AGAIN
May 5, 2013 By
On Friday’s News and Views from the Nefarium
(May 3, 2013), and again yesterday, I presented the thesis that the
vast hidden system of finance developed after World War Two must be
viewed in the larger context of what it was used for, namely, a
vast political covert operations slush fund and the creation of a black
research projects empire, a technocracy having access to almost
unimaginable technology. As such, it constitutes a key pillar of
post-war Western, and American, power. To raise doubts about the
financial element is to imperil all the other elements, and hence, the
western financial oligarchs may no longer be the central players in the
unfolding financial drama.
Well …. perhaps…
But with that context as a backdrop, consider this article:
Financial Treachery & Harsh Consequences
There’s so much here to draw attention to that one does not really know where to begin. Bonds as money, money as monetized debt (or what I have called the facsimile of money)… but there are two paragraphs worth considering:
What led to this whole mess in the first place is, in part, the post-war financial decisions, but there is a longer history at work as well, and part of that history involves monetized debt as legal tender, and the other part…
…well, consider that other part: the confusion of deposit banking with investment banking. In the current western system, the two are often indistinguishable, and have more often than not in western history led to the creation of such bubbles and collapses, and the widespread fraud and corruption accompanying them. Perhaps it is time, at least, for a public discussion of this fundamental aspect of western institutions. Should depositors’ money be treated as a legally undertaken risk, to such an extent that they are “unsecured creditors” who suffer losses first? Is it really true that depositors intended their money to be used in credit default swaps, derivatives, mortgage fraud? Or is there an implicit contract assuming less risky uses? If banks can “earmark” or “hypothecate”, shouldn’t depositors be able to say, you may use my money for this (real mortgages) and not that (derivatives, credit default swaps)? Shouldn’t we de-couple deposit and investment banking?
These are all, of course, just questions. But they do, I believe, illustrate a debate that has not been happening. The last 100 years has been the century of The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Century of the Federal Reserve and all bankster claptrap that has ensued therefrom: BIS, IMF, World Bank…and oh yes, let’s not forget the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, Montague Norman, the Strongs, Hjalmar Schacht, and all the rest.
The last fifty years of that century has been the history of fraud and empire building on a massive scale, empire building only made possible by ignoring such questions.
So I am bold to suggest that not only are the non-western countries demanding a seat at the table and a say in the “architecture”, but that if that architecture is again constructed without genuine input from the people it most impacts, and upon whom it most depends for survival, then no architecture even of the BRICSA nations, will be adequate. One can only hope that if the BRICSA nations eventually adopt their own sort of “Bilderberg meetings”, that they will publish the places and times, and welcome input from the people so long excluded in the western counterparts.
But don’t hold your breath.
Well …. perhaps…
But with that context as a backdrop, consider this article:
Financial Treachery & Harsh Consequences
There’s so much here to draw attention to that one does not really know where to begin. Bonds as money, money as monetized debt (or what I have called the facsimile of money)… but there are two paragraphs worth considering:
The collection of treacherous practices, most of which emanate from the myriad USGovt offices, have invited stern reaction by the global players. These diverse treacherous practices, often implemented by the Wall Street banks and their ring leader the US Federal Reserve, have invited stern reaction by the global players. The broad cover for treacherous practices, provided protective cover by the USGovt regulatory agencies, have invited stern reaction by foreign nations in a powerful response. The disintegration of the financial foundation built of USDollar steel beams and USTreasury Bond cement blocks has been crumbling and collapsing for the last four years, ever since the Lehman Brothers failure and the integration of Fannie Mae & AIG under the USGovt roof, where their $trillion frauds are kept deeply hidden in the shadows and basement. While the Manhattan Made Men continue to attempt to hold things together, they struggle mightily, lacking sufficient fingers and toes to plug the vast leaky dikes. In response to predation and treachery, the rest of the world has not only been undergoing reaction, they have also been developing the reaction into organized structures. The main victim has been trust and security, for money, bonds, and bank accounts. All property not nailed down is at deep risk. The current wave of treachery and fraud follows the last wave, where most Americans saw their home equity vanish, many foreclosed and jettisoned from the homestead. The public should harbor no trust, while clinging to suspicion toward the leadership crew that undermined security with its own hands. The list of acts steeped in treachery is long. The reactions are impressive. When viewed as the mosaic for actions coming to pass, the global response is indeed formidable. The micro events are important in their own right, as each hilltop must be retaken and restored. The macro events are what will en masse change the world, as a Paradigm Shift is underway. The United States and its fascist allies are not in control. They will not find a path to retain or regain control. They have no solutions. The most powerful element of the shift has been the movement of gold wealth from Western locations (New York, London, Switzerland) to Eastern locations (China, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong). Most residents of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe are in shock, constantly distracted by the sweeping disruptive events led by a) unstoppable government deficits, b) the powerful crumble of sovereign bonds, c) the ruinous insolvency of the banking systems, d) the relentless reign of tax terror, and e) the tragic decline of the underlying economies. The West is sinking in a sea of fecal soup, stirred with the toxic paper spew, infected by the rot of acidic corrosion, weighed down by absent legitimate solutions, exploited by criminal activity in high offices. The treachery has brought on powerful consequences. The Western lords are being deposed. They can appeal for squire posts to the East, or else they can wreck the globe. The biggest question is whether new trade devices will win out over the chosen Western fascist predilection toward wider war, release of more virulent viruses, more obvious slavery pens, and louder propaganda.In the context which I outlined, the choice facing the Western oligarchs is indeed clear, and the author of the article has spelled them out well. But right now, no one can really afford that “wider war” option, and expanding the “more obvious slavery pens” in an already shaky power base at home might backfire as well, bringing about an even swifter collapse.
What led to this whole mess in the first place is, in part, the post-war financial decisions, but there is a longer history at work as well, and part of that history involves monetized debt as legal tender, and the other part…
…well, consider that other part: the confusion of deposit banking with investment banking. In the current western system, the two are often indistinguishable, and have more often than not in western history led to the creation of such bubbles and collapses, and the widespread fraud and corruption accompanying them. Perhaps it is time, at least, for a public discussion of this fundamental aspect of western institutions. Should depositors’ money be treated as a legally undertaken risk, to such an extent that they are “unsecured creditors” who suffer losses first? Is it really true that depositors intended their money to be used in credit default swaps, derivatives, mortgage fraud? Or is there an implicit contract assuming less risky uses? If banks can “earmark” or “hypothecate”, shouldn’t depositors be able to say, you may use my money for this (real mortgages) and not that (derivatives, credit default swaps)? Shouldn’t we de-couple deposit and investment banking?
These are all, of course, just questions. But they do, I believe, illustrate a debate that has not been happening. The last 100 years has been the century of The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Century of the Federal Reserve and all bankster claptrap that has ensued therefrom: BIS, IMF, World Bank…and oh yes, let’s not forget the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, Montague Norman, the Strongs, Hjalmar Schacht, and all the rest.
The last fifty years of that century has been the history of fraud and empire building on a massive scale, empire building only made possible by ignoring such questions.
So I am bold to suggest that not only are the non-western countries demanding a seat at the table and a say in the “architecture”, but that if that architecture is again constructed without genuine input from the people it most impacts, and upon whom it most depends for survival, then no architecture even of the BRICSA nations, will be adequate. One can only hope that if the BRICSA nations eventually adopt their own sort of “Bilderberg meetings”, that they will publish the places and times, and welcome input from the people so long excluded in the western counterparts.
But don’t hold your breath.
Read more: THE GOLD STUFF YET AGAIN
No comments:
Post a Comment