Thursday, April 17, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

Cyprus Steal: The West’s Premeditated Bank-Robbery

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

User Rating: / 11
PoorBest 

The veils have been removed. The open criminality of Western regimes is now on display for all the world to see. Bank robbery is now official government policy across the West with no debate, and (of course) no voting.

As was noted in my original commentary on this government-perpetrated crime; it was immediately obvious that this was an entirely staged/scripted event. To fully comprehend the premeditated nature of this crime requires a detailed examination of the chronology.

December 10th, 2012:

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the UK Bank of England jointly release a “position paper” titled Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions. Sounds wonderful: “resolving.” They are finally coming up with a plan to put the “Too Big To Fail” fraud-factories out of our misery. Wrong.

This document is a blueprint for precisely the opposite: propping-up these TBTF monstrosities forever. This manifesto was simply coming up with new “proposals for financing” – i.e. feeding the Beast. And one of these proposals was the “bail-in.”

[Item 19] The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)… [emphasis mine]

Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful “free press”? In fact, why did the Corporate Media not even mention that the “bail-in” was now government policy for the U.S. and UK?

And what about our “representatives”; our “leaders” – the politicians? Why did not a single one of these Stalwarts in the U.S./UK utter so much as a “peep” about bank robbery becoming official government policy in the United States and United Kingdom?

Because when these Traitor Governments made this their “official policy” they never (fully) defined what they really meant by “bail-in”. Here is as close as the FDIC/Bank of England come to telling the truth:

A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors [emphasis mine]

Why were no UK politicians protesting the “bail-in”? Because when the Bank of England spoke of “allocating losses to…unsecured creditors” no one would have dreamed that what this central bank really meant was stealing the money out of peoples’ bank accounts.

It should be noted that while that provision was explicitly designated as applying (only) to “the U.K. regime” that it can be implicitly understood that it applies to the U.S. as well. While the provisions for “the U.S. regime” do not use the term “bail-in”; here is the vague language which was employed:

Title II [of the Dodd-Frank Act] requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors [emphasis mine]

The official policy of the U.S. government is precisely the same as that of the UK (hence the joint “position paper”); the FDIC simply didn’t articulate its own plans for bank-robbery to the same degree. Put another way; there were seven sections detailing how the UK would “resolve” these “systemically important institutions” (but no mention of bank-robbery) versus only two sections for the U.S.

Now we come to the remainder of the chronology, which not only proves that the Cyprus Steal was planned (at least) as far back as December 2012, but that “the fix was in”: our Traitor Governments had already reached agreement with the Traitor Government of Cyprus to perpetrate this crime.


March 15th:

The EU banking cabal (and its puppet politicians) “surprise” the world by announcing a plan to steal money out of the bank accounts of ordinary people in order to “recapitalize” a private bank in Cyprus, while a publicly-owned bank would be liquidated – and also fed to the private bank. Victimizing the people twice in order to temporarily prop-up another reckless/insolvent fraud-factory.

As noted previously, this was obviously a proposal intended to fail in this silly, two-act theater. This was proven by the zealous insistence of the European Central Bank that the original proposal must “magnify the hit” on smaller depositors. This would ensure maximum public outrage, and guarantee that the politicians would vote against it.

The ECB is the third member of the Western Troika, along with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. They were solely responsible for the final language of the original proposal; solely responsible for its rejection.

March 19th:

Cyprus politicians (government and opposition alike) unanimously reject the “bail-in”. What a surprise!

March 21st:

Stephen Harper, leader of Canada’s Conservative government officially tables the 2013 Canadian Budget; which makes the “bail-in” the official law of Canada.

[page 145] The Government proposes to implement a bail-in regime for systemically important banks…

As with the U.S. and UK, the Canadian document contains nothing but weasel-words which never fully define what “bail-in” really means – i.e. robbing peoples’ bank accounts to temporarily prop-up reckless/parasitic banks.

Is Stephen Harper the most-stupid politician in the Western world? Two days after the government of Cyprus unanimously rejects bank-robbery as a means to “recapitalize banks”, Harper makes this the official law of Canada. Would he really want to go into the next election as “Stephen Harper: Bank-Robber of the West”? Or, did Harper know something then which (almost) no one else knew.

March 25th:

The government of Cyprus approves the “new-and-improved” Cyprus Steal; amid reports that the Big Money had already been warned about this bank-robbery, and had moved their own money out weeks/months ahead of time. And now our picture is complete.

We have our Traitor Governments planning this bank-robbery months in advance, and warning the big-money Oligarchs so that they would not be affected. We have them then staging an “emergency.”

The TG’s then tell us that because of this “emergency” they need to instantly raise a lot of money, and so they don’t have time to fairly-and-systematically “tax” people with some broad, general levy; but rather they “need to” simply seize wealth from a particular group of targeted Victims.

This time it was stealing money out of bank accounts; next time it might be confiscating pensions. The blueprint (i.e. Script) is now firmly in place:

1) (Secretly) plan the Robbery.

2) Warn the Big Money (so all their wealth is moved to safety).

3) Announce/stage an “emergency.”

4) Perpetrate the theft.

The criminality of the West’s Traitor Governments is now a matter of record; their written confessions are contained in official, public documents. The question then becomes: what will be the response of the Sheep – i.e. the pseudo-citizens of these regimes? Will they simply sit back and submit to a “taxation regime” which now has abandoned even the pretense of legitimacy?

If the answer to that question is “yes”; then one can only conclude that the Sheep deserve to be robbed. They elect these Traitor Governments. They continue snoozing when the politicians publicly announce they plan on openly stealing from them. They allow themselves to be robbed. You can’t help Victims who refuse to help themselves.

What about the rest of us; the remaining Citizens of these once-legitimate regimes? We have no choice but to “protect ourselves”. Not with guns, but with our brains. With first “MF Global” and now the Cyprus Steal; we now have incontrovertible proof that no paper asset is safe in the West. Period.

We must therefore divest ourselves of as much paper as possible, with “physical” gold and silver bullion being the best/safest (or least-worst) option. Do not pump every last penny of your wealth into our “bubble” real-estate markets. They are all doomed to suffer major crashes.

Obviously we will receive no further “warnings” from our governments.

Trackback(0)
Comments (2)Add Comment
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, April 02, 2013
Think the time has come to take the tax hit cashing out funds on deposit as RRSP's & moving these assets into self held precious metals?


MantaRay, I struggle with a response to such questions since so many variables are involved. The two largest categories of "variables" are:

1) PERCEPTION of current risks (i.e. the probability of catastrophic outcome).

2) Personal circumstances: age, wealth-level, wealth-mobility, diversity of assets, etc.

My goal (not being a "financial manager") is not to attempt to tell others what to do. My goal is to try to make people aware of these issues (risks), and then to explain the nature of those risks to the best of my ability.

At that point, it necessarily becomes a matter of personal responsibility. I never claim to possess a crystal-ball. I don't know precisely when Implosion will occur; I don't know precisely what form it will take.

There are no "answers" which are 100% guarantees against all possible scenarios. Spreading out one's wealth (to prevent "large targets), and having a "substantial" amount of one's wealth INSURED by converting it to precious metals is about the best general advice I can give people. smilies/smiley.gif
uxhamby
...
written by MantaRay, April 01, 2013
Think the time has come to take the tax hit cashing out funds on deposit as RRSP's & moving these assets into self held precious metals?

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

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