Thursday, March 05, 2015
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

International Commentary

Rothschild vs. Rothschild

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

Unsustainable. Self-destructive. Readers have heard these terms again and again over the past 6+ years. They accurately encompass the status of our societies/economies (unsustainable), and the process by which we are governed (self-destruction). But what happens after the “unsustainable” cannot be sustained for one more day/hour/minute? What happens after the banksters whom are destroying our economies succeed?

Previous analysis in this area has arrived at the conclusion that once this Old World Order completes the destruction of its own power base (Western economies), that (logically) it will lose power – at least partially, if not completely. However, this analysis will instead adopt the position of “Devil’s Advocate”, in honour of the Devils, themselves. What if the Rothschilds’ destruction of their own power base does not result in them losing their control (i.e. choke-hold) over our societies?

The key in such a hypothetical analysis is to be cognizant that we are dealing with psychopaths. This is essential, because psychopaths exhibit rigid, predictable patterns to their behavior. Specifically, their behavior is compulsive, i.e. they have little control over it, themselves. It can be easily illustrated, empirically, both that the Rothschilds are a clan of psychopaths, and that their conduct is “compulsive”, even when extremely detrimental to their own (long term) interests.

As was noted again in a recent commentary; when these banksters began their serious era of precious metals price-suppression (after Nixon assassinated the gold standard); this financial crime syndicate sat atop the largest (ill-gotten) hoard of bullion ever amassed by our species. Had their vehicle for financial rape, the One Bank, contented itself with merely controlling bullion prices; its bullion-manipulation racket could have been sustained in perpetuity, with no (long term) encroachment on their own hoards.

Instead, these financial psychopaths were (self) compelled to destroy the precious metals sector, bankrupting most of the mining companies, and creating a massive/structural supply-deficit – simply because they could. It was not merely malice without purpose, it was malice which severely undermined their own, long-term interests (by exhausting their own bullion stockpiles), the hallmark of psychopathic behavior.

No rational (i.e. sane/healthy) mammal defecates in its own bed. Yet what do we see continually reflected in the behavior of the Rothschilds? To gain further understanding here; we need merely refer to a definition of the phrase “power base”:

The area or group of people that provides the main support.

Obviously “power base” is synonymous with “foundation”. The Rothschilds have destroyed their own economic foundation (the U.S. economy, and to a lesser extent, other Western economies) because they couldn’t resist the compulsion to steal their own foundation.

 

Swiss De-Pegging Reveals Worthless Western Currencies

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

A major economic event has occurred. The government of Switzerland ended its “peg” to the euro with its own currency, the Swiss franc. This resulted in the franc catapulting higher in its exchange rate versus the euro (as well as other currencies). We know this is a major economic event, because the Corporate media has expended a considerable amount of time/energy “covering” and “explaining” this event.

However, as all regular readers know; the Corporate media doesn’t engage in its coverage and explanations to provide information to the general public. It does so to provide misinformation, i.e. propaganda. We see this dishonesty evidenced by the efforts of the Corporate media to portray this move as a surprise.

The Swiss National Bank stunned markets on Thursday, when it scrapped its three-year-old peg of 1.20 Swiss francs per euro.

The obvious question which arises in the minds of those viewing this lie is this: since the Swiss government had no choice but to end the peg; how can doing something it had to do be considered a surprise? This question becomes “obvious” as soon as readers are given an explanation of how a government “pegs” a currency, and why a government pegs a currency – something which the propaganda machine refuses to do.

Pegging” a currency is a simple, brute-force act of market manipulation. Indeed, the manipulation is directly implied in the term itself. In a world of (supposedly) “floating markets”; one government endeavours to literally “fix” its currency to another, at a constant rate of exchange. As regular readers have been told on many previous occasions; no form of market manipulation can be maintained permanently, since any ongoing manipulation creates greater and greater economic imbalances – and thus ever-increasing “pressure” in markets to correct this imbalance.

Therefore the day that Switzerland’s government began this act of currency manipulation, it already knew that this could only be a temporary band-aid. Thus we immediately see that the efforts of the Corporate media to depict this as a surprise are obvious lies. But it brings us to the second question (which the Corporate media also refuses to answer/explain); why did Switzerland’s government originally feel compelled to engage in this unsustainable policy of market-manipulation?

Typically, when one government seeks to “peg” (fix) its currency versus another currency, it is a stronger currency being pegged to a weaker currency, as we saw with China’s peg to the U.S. dollar. The motive for stronger currencies being pegged to weaker ones is relatively simple.

When a currency rises in value; this is almost always good for the people of that jurisdiction, but usually bad for the government. Why is this? Simple. As holders of that currency; the people naturally benefit, because as the currency rises in value, so does their purchasing-power – they get more “bang” for every “buck”.

Conversely, as (inevitably) the biggest Debtor of that currency; governments don’t like to see their currency rise in value because it increases the “size” of their debts (in real dollars). The second reason why governments like to debase their currencies (rather than allow them to rise in value), is the silly “import/export game” in which nearly all governments now engage.

   

Economic Terrorism Against Russia Intensifies

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

The Russian ruble fell a further 7% Monday. What is the “reason” cited in the Corporate media for this latest, further plunge in its “value” (i.e. exchange rate)? An “economic report” which shows that Russia’s economy is shrinking. Here we see the pattern of the economic terrorism perpetrated by the One Bank exposed.

In 2010; the One Bank decided to destroy the economy of Greece. It did so for several reasons. It wanted to “make an example” of Greece for all the other European governments to see. This was deemed essential when (tiny) Iceland successfully broke-free of the control of this crime syndicate after the Crash of ‘08, and reclaimed its own sovereignty. It was not about to allow other European governments to follow that example, and begin to assert their own independence.

It also wanted to test its market-rigging capabilities from merely manipulating markets in order to destroy particular economic sectors, or corporations, to full-fledged economic terrorism: destroying nations (economically) with illegal market-rigging on a scale never before witnessed. Its modus operandi has been described in more detail previously, so the mechanics will only be summarized here.

In the case of the attack on Greece, because it shares a currency with other European nations; the One Bank could not use currency-manipulation as its tool of destruction (as it is presently doing against Russia). Instead, it launched its economic terrorism at the debt market of Greece.


As regular readers know; in fundamental terms the economy of Greece in 2010 was very similar to that of the United States – except obviously on a dramatically smaller scale. Like the U.S.; Greece was/is hopelessly insolvent. Like the U.S.; Greece had grossly over-invested in military spending and infrastructure, which was the primary means by which both nations became hopelessly insolvent.

But in 2010; the U.S. was (according to the Corporate media) already in the midst of “an economic recovery”: an exercise in economic mythology which is now six years long, and counting. Greece’s economy, on the other hand, with the same economic fundamentals as the U.S., suddenly took a nose-dive. Interest rates on Greece’s debts started to soar. As previously explained; it is no more difficult for the One Bank to manipulate interest rates than it is for these banksters to manipulate currencies. As Greece’s interest rate (on its gigantic debt) was pushed higher and higher, naturally this caused severe economic damage.

   

The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part III

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

In Parts I and II; readers saw how all of the public debts of our nations (past and present) were the direct result of fraud, and thus legally unenforceable – on two bases. Firstly; the bankers of these Big Banks proclaimed themselves the world’s foremost financial experts. On that basis; they not only received privileged treatment for these Big Banks, they were recipients of confidential financial and economic information from our governments, as fiduciaries who were claiming to be acting in our best interests.

In reality; these Con Men never had anything on their minds other than burying our nations in debt, in their own best interests. However, based upon the well-established legal doctrine of “fraudulent misrepresentation”; these fiduciary financial “experts” owed us a duty of honesty. Having violated that duty (incessantly); the multi-trillion dollar IOU’s that the One Bank is holding (in the form of our national debts) are illegal and unenforceable.

But there is also a second basis for legally repudiating these debts, in full. As detailed by Republican Congressman, Charles Lindbergh (roughly a century ago); our governments were already completely in the service of this financial crime syndicate a hundred years earlier. Our political “leaders”, who also had (and have) a legal duty to represent us to the best of their abilities have been little more than the bankers’ bought-and-paid-for stooges for the past 100+ years.

Having our own representatives behave in a fraudulent (and arguably criminal manner) is an equally valid legal basis for erasing every cent of these monstrous, mountainous debts. There can be no argument that our public debts are anything other than illegal/unenforceable, merely a choice as to which legal ground to use as justification for their repudiation.

However, it isn’t only our governments who have been enslaved in debt. Much of our populations have done the same to themselves, as well. Indeed, countless millions of inhabitants across the corrupt West have already seen their own finances implode, on the basis of being no longer able to even service their debts – let alone repay them.

Unlike our public debts; we have no (corrupt) “representatives” whom we can blame directly for our own indebtedness, thus that particular argument for repudiating our personal debts is denied to us. But in law; one doesn’t need two valid arguments to succeed in any adjudication, one substantial basis is all that is required.

This then leaves us with the second basis for (potentially) repudiating our personal debts: the fraudulent conduct of these financial predators. Here, once again, the circumstances of our personal debts are not the same as with our public debts. Unlike the representations which these banksters made to our (corrupt) governments; the bankers (and the Big Banks they serve) do not portray themselves as our fiduciaries when we approach them for financial advice and/or services.

They articulate to us (or, at least, they are supposed to) that we are “responsible” for our own financial decisions, and thus they advise us to “read carefully” any/all financial documents or agreements they put before us. Does this thus absolve the Big Banks of responsibility (and guilt), as they malevolently buried 100’s of millions of generally well-meaning individuals under mountains of debt they could never hope to manage?

   

The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part II

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

Part I of this series demonstrated how/why all of our government debts incurred in recent decades are the result of obvious and egregious fraud. These debts currently cripple our economies (and societies) with roughly 25% of every revenue dollar taken in by our corrupt governments being utterly wasted, making interest payments to financial parasites – criminal parasites.

This means that not only is it morally defensible (and imperative) that we wipe away these recent, fraudulent debts, it can be justified legally, in clear and unequivocal terms. But the question which remained from the opening installment of this series was with respect to the morality/legality of our historical debts. Could we, should we also erase the debts incurred by past generations, after we wipe away all of the recent years of debt-via-fraud?

Part I provided a clue/argument on how we should adjudicate the debts from our past, in the form of a quote from the late Charles Lindbergh Sr., former Republican Congressman, and a champion of the people in his own era, nearly a century ago:

Our future and the future of our children have been doubly mortgaged by the wonderful profiteering schemes of the last eight years [1915 – 22], mortgaged on a larger scale than ever before. It is simply a larger installment of the great profiteering game, growing in its burden all the time and forcing us into greater and greater debt, debt that can never be paid under the present system of finance; but, on the contrary, will increase until by its own excesses it breaks down by forcing its own repudiation [i.e. Debt Jubilee]. It cannot much longer stand the strain imposed by its own plan.  [emphasis mine]

There are two themes which dominate this quote. First of all; the debts incurred in Lindbergh’s era – the original debts of our nations – were the product of a “game” (or a scam, or a fraud?). The banking cabal of Lindbergh’s era, the (direct) ancestors of today’s banking oligarchs employed coercion: “forcing” us into debt, and (via the arithmetic of compound interest) ultimately “forcing” us to repudiate that debt.

Clearly the original debts piled atop our nations were also the result of malice, coercion, and fraud. The malice and coercion are explicitly implied by the quote; the fraud is implicitly implied. Were the banksters of Lindbergh’s era – who also professed to be “the financial advisors” of our governments – telling our governments that the economic path they were leading us down could only end in disaster and bankruptcy? Of course not.

They professed to have a superior understanding of “finance”, and (like all Con Artists) they claimed the subtleties of this “finance” were too complex to grasp – for anyone lacking their “expertise”. Lindbergh understood in his own era, as it is understood here, that the majority of “finance” is nothing more than the application of arithmetic.

Any entity which steadily and relentlessly incurs debt will go bankrupt. There is no ‘magical’ means of manipulating one’s financial management in a manner which contradicts the most-basic principles of arithmetic. Were the political leaders of Lindbergh’s era simply too stupid to grasp the arithmetic of compound interest: that piling debt on top of debt must lead to bankruptcy (and Debt Jubilee)?

   

The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part I

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

Our nations (Western nations) are rapidly going bankrupt. This is not a suggestion, or an assertion. It is a simple fact of arithmetic, for anyone capable of operating a calculator, and who can understand the concept of “compound interest”. Indeed, the bankruptcy of these already-insolvent regimes has only been delayed via permanently (fraudulently) keeping interest rates frozen at near-zero – to minimize their already gigantic interest payments.

The economic outcome here is as obvious as it is inevitable. After the mass-bankruptcy which will occur either tomorrow, next month, next year, or (improbably) next decade; there will be a gigantic “economic reset” of Western economies, and very possibly the entire global economy.

This simple, inevitable conclusion should not surprise any reader. It has happened many times in our civilized history. Indeed, it has happened with such regularity/frequency that we even have a name for this economic phenomenon: Debt Jubilee. The origins of Debt Jubilee go back to (literally) Biblical times, as our societies have been bankrupting themselves, and then “resetting” for well over 2,000 years.

Having established that there must be an economic reset ahead of us, and having observed that this is a regular occurrence in our societies/civilizations; all that remains to be dealt with is how the next Debt Jubilee should be administered. As Debt Jubilee translates literally to erasing our debts; the question boils down to this: should all debt (government/corporate/individual) be wiped away, or only partially erased?

Since this is ultimately a question of law, and we are still (supposedly) societies governed by the Rule of Law; the appropriate analysis here is a legal one. The legal principle upon which any Debt Jubilee must be based is known as “the doctrine of unjust enrichment”. It is an elementary doctrine, and thus requires no legal training or expertise to understand it.

The precise legal question to be decided here is a simple one: would the Debtors here (our governments, and us) be “unjustly enriched” if all our debts were totally/permanently erased? If we answer the first question affirmatively; then the doctrine of unjust enrichment requires that we consider a second question: are the Debt-Holders entitled to any legal remedy themselves, under a separate branch of our law known (appropriately) as Equity?

Here, again, the answer to the question is governed by a simple principle. In order for any person/entity to be entitled to any equitable remedy in our legal system, they must satisfy a stringent legal test: they must demonstrate themselves to have “clean hands”. Simply, in order for anyone to be entitled to a legal remedy in Equity (in this case, the Debt-Holders) they must prove that their own conduct has been above reproach.

With the facts set out, the issues identified, and the legal principles which must decide this matter explained; we are now ready to adjudicate our coming Debt Jubilee. Considering the issues in their proper order; we begin with the question: would it be “unjust” (would we be unjustly enriched?) if our debts/our governments debts were simply erased?

Regular readers should be familiar with the recent history concerning our governments’ massive debts. The $10’s of trillions of new debt piled atop these corrupt Western regimes over the past decade are (without exception) all the direct result of serial acts of fraud/extortion by the primary debt-holder here: the One Bank (i.e. the oligarchs of the Old World Order).

   

Page 1 of 27

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form