Independence fever catching on faster than Ebola?


Reuters

One in four Americans want their state to secede from the U.S., but why?

September 19, 2014
map

Click on the image to explore the the complete poll results.

For the past few weeks, as Scotland debated the wisdom of independence, Reuters has been asking Americans how they would feel about declaring independence today, not from the United Kingdom, but from the mother country they left England to create. The exact wording of the question was, “Do you support or oppose the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the United States of America and the federal government?”

gender2It was hard to imagine many people would support secession. Forget the fact that the cautionary lesson of the Civil War is top of mind for many people as we commemorate its 150th anniversary; just in terms of dollars and cents, who in their right minds would give up all the money they’ve already paid into the Social Security and Medicare systems? Besides, most states get more back from the federal government than they put in.

Then the results came in. You can see them for yourself here, and you can filter them any way you want—by age, region, income, party affiliation, etc. Any way you slice it, the data are startlingly clear: Almost a quarter (23.9 percent) of those surveyed said they were strongly or provisionally inclined to leave the United States, and take their states with them. Given the polling sample — about 9,000 people so far—the online survey’s credibility interval (which is digital for “margin of error”) was only 1.2 percentage points, so there is no question that that is what they said.

template0914Secession got more support from Republicans than Democrats, more from right- than left-leaning independents, more from younger than older people, more from lower- than higher-income brackets, more from high school than college grads. But there was a surprising amount of support in every group and region, especially the Rocky Mountain states, the Southwest and the old Confederacy, but also in places like Illinois and Kansas. And of the people who said they identified with the Tea Party, supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53 percent.

The question is, what do results like this mean for the country?

First, it should be acknowledged that intramural conflict has been in character for Americans since the earliest settlements, when Puritan New England faced off against Royalist Virginia in the English Civil War. More than a century later, the Revolutionary War was barely won when the states, never quite friendly, were at each other’s throats, and the infant nation came close to being strangled in its crib.

It was in part to avoid the danger that the colonies would break into competing regional confederacies that the founders plotted to hold the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But even when the new Constitution made secession illegal, the impulse to break up stayed strong. Serious state and regional threats of secession flared up in 1799, 1814 and 1828. Fifteen years before 11 Southern states did secede in 1860, sparking the Civil War, William Lloyd Garrison called for the North to secede under the banner of “No Union With Slaveholders.”

All told, secessionist feints and follies have produced notional movements for more than a hundred new states and nations in North America, from Absaroka to Yazoo. A book about such causes, Lost States, manages to be quite amusing.

Followup phone calls with a small, random sample of pro-secession respondents to the Reuters poll, however, suggest that while their wish to leave the union may not be quite what it appears, it is not amusing at all.

Those we spoke to seemed to have answered as they did as a form of protest that was neither red nor blue but a polychromatic riot — against a recovery that has yet to produce jobs, against jobs that don’t pay, against mistreatment of veterans, against war, against deficits, against hyper-partisanship, against political corruption, against illegal immigration, against the assault on marriage, against the assault on same-sex marriage, against government in the bedroom, against government in general — the president, Congress, the courts and both political parties.

By the evidence of the poll data as well as these anecdotal conversations, the sense of aggrievement is comprehensive, bipartisan, somewhat incoherent, but deeply felt.

This should be more than disconcerting; it’s a situation that could get dangerous. As the Princeton political scientist Mark Beissinger has shown, separatist movements can take hold around contempt for incumbents and the status quo even when protesters have no ideology in common.

The United States hardly seems to be on the verge of fracture, and the small secession movements in a handful of American states today represent a tiny percentage of those polled by Reuters. But any country where 60 million people declare themselves to be sincerely aggrieved — especially one that is fractious by nature — is a country inviting either the sophistry of a demagogue or a serious movement for reform.

..

home

.

More Questions Surfacing About Vote Rigging Scotland’s Independence Referendum


merahza:

…the “voting process” is nothing more than a democratic instrument of dominance of an eye-wash whilst the process is strictly under the controllers’ control, just like all the games in a casino which is tightly roped and the gamblers/punters have no (fair) chance at winning. Its an efficient template of domination. The people of the world should realize this by now. The people can never win any game of the controllers creation…not in their court anyway. The people need to find an alternative game played on a neutral court/playing ground to have any chance… if at all.

Originally posted on Ronmamita's Blog:

Click to Enlarge
As soon as we received the facts that the bankers felt very threatened and exemplified their fears with spoken threats of their own (a “Yes” vote would mean they would move their offices from Scotland) prior to the votes.
Here is an example:
RBS confirms London HQ moveifScotlandvotes ‘Yes’ – BBC.com

We then reported that the banking cartel has a interest in rigging the votes.
Having experienced vote rigging and elections fraud here in the U.S. the probability of vote rigging during the Scottish referendum is credible indeed.

MOSCOW, September 19 (RIA Novosti) – Russian observers think that Westminster put significant pressure on Scots during the independence referendum on September 18.

Imagine in the near future, a region will declare itself independent of the European Union… ~Ron


18 Sept 2014
Police Probe Scotland Independence ‘Voter Fraud’ Allegations
.

Brussels Celebrates their Defeat of Scottish…

View original 542 more words

Five Lessons Learned from the Scottish Referendum


 

bf Ludwig Von Mises Institute

by , September 20, 2014

.

referendumGovernment authorities in the UK have declared that the “Yes” campaign for secession has failed by a margin of approximately 55 percent to 45 percent. Yet, even without a majority vote for secession, the campaign for separation from the United Kingdom has already provided numerous insights into the future of secession movements and those who defend the status quo.

Lesson 1: Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization

Global elite institutions and individuals including Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, David Cameron and several major banks pulled out all the stops to sow fear about independence as much as possible. Global bankers vowed to punish Scotland, declaring they would move out of Scotland if independence were declared.

According to one report:

A Deutsche Bank report compared it to the decision to return to the gold standard in the 1920s, and said it might spark a rerun of the Great Depression, at least north of the border.

When it comes to predictions of economic doom, it doesn’t get much more hysterical than that. Except that it does. David Cameron nearly burst into tears begging the Scots not to vote for independence.

The elite onslaught against secession employed at least two strategies. The first involved threats and “for your own good” lectures. Things will “not work out well” for Scotland in case of secession, intoned Robert Zoellick of the World Bank. John McCain implied that Scottish independence would be good for terrorists. The second strategy involved pleading and begging, which, of course, betrayed how truly fearful the West’s ruling class is of secession.

In addition to Cameron’s histrionics based on nostalgia and maudlin appeals to not break “this family apart,” Cameron attempted (apparently successfully) to bribe the Scottish voters with numerous promises of more money, more autonomy, and more power within the UK.

The threats that focused on the future of the Scottish monetary system are particularly telling. The very last thing that governments in London, Brussels, or Washington, DC want to see is an established Western country secede from a monetary system and join another in an orderly fashion. Political secession is bad enough, and is a thorn in the side of the EU which clearly hopes to establish itself someday as a perpetual union with no escape option. A successful withdrawal from a major global currency, even if to join the EMU later, would imply that countries have monetary options other than being absorbed wholesale (and permanently) by the EMU.

Lesson 2: Secession Movements Will Demand a Vote

While the UK elites were desperate to see the Scotland referendum fail, few argued that the Scots had no right to vote on the matter. Some argued that all of the UK should vote on it, but most observers appeared to simply accept that the Scots were entitled to vote by themselves on Scotland’s status in the UK.

This is bad news for many American and European regimes where traditions of democracy ostensibly run strong, but are manipulated to favor centralization. The United States government, for example, clings to the idea that no secession could possibly take place unless approved by the central government, and most Americans will dutifully denounce any attempt at a secessionist vote as treason. But in Europe, the mere existence of the Scotland referendum calls into question the legitimacy of efforts by central governments to ignore or prohibit local votes on independence. The Italian government has practically refused to even acknowledge the existence of the Venetian referendum, and the Spanish government in Madrid has already reiterated that it will ignore the results of the upcoming Catalonian vote.

It will not go unnoticed that the people who ignore such democratic outcomes when they endanger the elite’s status quo are the same people who extol the virtues of democracy when it suits their centralizing purposes, or when used to justify foreign wars.

Those regimes that deny a vote or which refuse to recognize votes to secede will continue to appear more and more retrograde as time goes on, and much of this will be due to the nearly unchallenged Scottish prerogative to conduct local votes on secession.

Some regimes may attempt to get around this by requiring nation-wide votes on secession. So, in the case of Venice, it is much easier to contemplate a situation in which the government in Rome allowed all of Italy to vote on whether or not Venice could secede. Such a vote would be safe from the central regime’s perspective since it would be highly unlikely to succeed under such conditions. Southern Italians benefit from tax revenues extracted from the Veneto region. Catalan, as well, is one of the more productive regions in Spain, so a nationwide vote would almost certainly lean toward continuing to exploit Catalonia for the benefit of less productive Spaniards.

Some observers have insisted that the relationship between such regions and the central governments in question are like “marriages” and that secession is like a “divorce.” A much better analogy, of course, is of a battered spouse seeking to flee the relationship for a safe house. Giving the full national electorate a vote is like giving an abusive spouse the power to veto any attempt at divorce.

It’s interesting to note, however, that Scotland is not in the same position as Veneto or Catalonia in that it is not a wealthy area of the United Kingdom. Indeed, from the point of view of budgets and tax revenues (ignoring the monetary dimension), England would not see much negative impact from Scotland’s departure. Had things been different, we might not have seen the same accepting attitude toward a referendum. Nonetheless, the precedent has been set.

Lesson 3: American Ideas about Secession Are Unsophisticated and Parochial

For a great many Americans, the concept of secession is meaningless outside the context of the American Civil War. Since it is conveniently never mentioned that the American Revolution was the result of American secession from the British Empire, Americans know virtually nothing of any other secession movement in history in any other context except the Confederacy and slavery. Some Americans of a certain age associate secession with the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, wrongly thinking that war to be caused by secession and not by decades of centralizing communist rule.

So, most Americans, when faced with a question of secession, have only two responses: (1) If you want secession you must want “balkanization.” By this, it is meant that secession equals ethnic cleansing and bloody civil war. (2) “If you want secession, you must be racist.” Because, of course, secession could serve no possible purpose other than the spread of slavery.

The Scottish question has made it clear that in the rest of the world, most educated human beings understand that secession has been used in a wide variety of historical and political contexts. Obviously, slavery has nothing at all to do with the secession movements in Quebec, Scotland, Veneto, or Catalonia.

Moreover, Americans in the typical fashion of authoritarians who justify any unjust state of affairs by dogmatically repeating the phrase “it’s the law” act as if the matter of regional autonomy and independence was settled once and for all in 1865 by the Civil War. Presumably, for these people, the matter has been settled until the End of Time, because some other people — all of whom are now long-dead — fought a war about it. It requires truly awe-inspiring levels of philistinism to think that something political is forever settled because of something someone else did a century and half ago. Among more rational and reasonable groups of humans, however, it is recognized that political conditions and allegiances change constantly.

At the same time, the pro-secessionists in America who dogmatically invoke the United States constitution of 1787 as proof of secession’s legality, will continue to fail to win converts. The constitution as envisioned by those who wrote it has been dead and buried for at least a century. The old interpretation is far too limiting in any case, and only applies to full US states, and not to portions of states.

Lesson 4: Secession is a good way to bargain

As we learned from the Scotland experience, centralizers fear secession to the point where they’re willing to throw a lot of bones to the secessionists. Of course, in the case of Scotland, which is a net tax-receiver region, these promises involved a lot of government welfare. In the case of Veneto, for example, things would be different. In any case, threatening secession is a useful tactic in obtaining additional autonomy. Moreover, it is always helpful to force a central government to submit to a referendum on its legitimacy. This should not be done in a one-off election as the Scots have done, but as a regular feature of the political process.

Ultimately, however, what really matters to the regime is that the ability to inflate the money supply and control the financial system. Politicians from the central government will be willing to part with many powers, but the power to inflate and control the banks will never be given up lightly.

Lesson 5: Centralization is Unnecessary for Economic Success

As predicted by Martin Van Creveld and a host of other observers of trends in state legitimacy, the state’s status as the central fact in the political order of the world continues to decline with smaller national groups and economic regions breaking up the old order in favor of both local autonomy and international alliances. The Scottish secession effort is simply one of many recent examples. The short-term defeat of the referendum will do little to alter this trend.

In addition, the economic realities of the modern world with constantly-moving capital and labor will continue to undermine the modern nation-state which has been largely built on the idea of economic nationalism and the myth that national economic self-sufficiency can be obtained.

The proliferation of trade among nations with huge national markets, labor forces, and a willingness to trade internationally has broken down the old national claims that only the nation-state can provide the markets, coercive power, and international clout necessary for economic growth. In fact, the Scots, the Venetians, and the Catalonians see access to international markets as something that is quite attainable without the added baggage of the central state to which they are presently beholden. Does Venice need Rome to trade with China? It’s unlikely.

As Peter St. Onge has pointed out, small nations do quite well when it comes to economic performance, and smallness is hardly a liability. This assertion that bigger is better was always easily disprovable, but remained popular for centuries. The success of the Scottish secessionist claims that Scotland could indeed compete internationally has shown that the dominance of the old myth continues to break down.

Conclusion

Some British newspapers have declared that “the dream is over” for Scottish independence. That seems hardly likely, unless by “over,” the newspapers mean “over for the next few years.” Europe-wide, the drive for more regional independence and autonomy will only continue to grow as economies stagnate, and as elites from Brussels or Rome or Madrid continue to maintain that they know best. Eventually, the promises of the centralizers will fall on very deaf ears.

Ludwig von Mises Institute

..

home

.

There are many a truth said in a jest (or satire)


 

For More Breaking News: http://www.theonion.com/video

Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are reportedly on high alert today after a group of dangerous sociopaths entered the chambers of Congress, posing what sources are calling “an extreme risk” to the U.S. federal government and the nation at large.

Subscribe to The Onion on YouTube: http://bit.ly/xzrBUA

..

home
.

Mainstream globalist propaganda reveals East/West conflict is a farce


redefininggod.com

Mainstream globalist propaganda reveals East/West conflict is a farce

For anyone who might still believe that the US/NATO versus Russia/BRICS geopolitical confrontation is real

here is a little blast from the past

ecocover

…It is the cover from the January 9, 1988 issue of The Economist magazine. Note the phoenix rising from the ashes of burning national currencies, including the dollar.The cover relates to an article on pages 9-10 titled Get ready for the phoenix, which foretold the financial drama we are now watching unfold in real time. Upon stumbling across them, I found the cover art and the article so striking that I thought they might be an online forgery, so I verified their authenticity with a research librarian at the Newspaper and Current Periodical Room of the Library of Congress. Both the cover and the article are quite real. Here are some excerpts (not necessarily in the order in which they appear in the article)…

>>> THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century…

The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power

The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF

…Governments are far from ready to subordinate their domestic objectives to the goal of international stability. Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice

Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes. <<<

It’s all there: the SDR “cocktail” (basket) of currencies, the IMF’s central role, and the need to create “exchange rate upsets, stockmarket crashes, and economic slumps” to make the public accept it. Seeing such an accurate forecast/blueprint, one wonders who was behind its publishing. So if we look into The Economist magazine, we find it is headquartered just a few blocks from the City of London and is owned by The Economist Group, which itself is owned by some rather interesting characters…

“The Economist Group is 50% owned by Pearson PLC via The Financial Times Limited. The bulk of the remaining shares are held by individual shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.”

Beyond the Rothschild and Agnelli families, who are widely rumored to be part of the Illuminati, the Schroder family is particularly worth noting. The Schroders (also spelled Schroeder) are an old German ruling class family from Hamburg. One of the Schroder brood, Johann Heinrich Schroder, settled in London and founded J. Henry Schroder & Co. (now known simply as “Schroders,” one of the UKs largest investment banks) back in 1818. Later, in 1923, the firm expanded into New York by establishing J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation. It is here that they joined with the Rockefeller family through Avery Rockefeller.

According to Avery’s bio…

“In 1928, Rockefeller joined the storied J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation and became Assistant Treasurer in 1931. On 8 July 1936, Rockefeller co-founded Schroder, Rockefeller & Co., Inc. Its purpose was to take over the underwriting and general securities business formerly carried out by the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation.”

Schroder, Rockefeller & Co. is widely viewed as having been an integral part of the globalist bankers’ financial support infrastructure for the Nazis. And another of the Schroders, Johann Heinrich’s great-grandson, Baron Kurt von Schroeder (shown here in his Nuremberg picture)…

BKVS…played a pivotal role..
“Schroeder was an important member of the Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft, which provided Adolf Hitler and his party with enough financial support to survive through the early 1930s. He also hosted a critical meeting on 4 January 1933 between Papen and Hitler that eventually led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany.”

The Nazis had (and continue to have) deep ties to the Anglo-American banking establishment, and also to The Economist. So this article came from a publication connected to the supposed “Nazi/Zionist Cabal.” Keep this in mind as we take a look at what that Cabal’s supposed enemies, the Chinese, are saying about the currently-unfolding global financial drama.

The Blueprint Revealed

I recently ran across a China Daily article titled Bracing for next big financial crisis, written by Giles Chance (a former World Bank staffer who is a professor at the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University). I strongly recommend following the link and reading the entire article, because it succinctly lays out the globalist plans and talking points for the next economic crisis. Once you correct for the article’s spin, it tells you everything. Here are some select passages, with my commentary added in brackets…

>>> Above the central banks, including the PBOC [People's Bank of China], stands the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which oversees the activities of national banking and monetary systems. The integration of markets and economies in a globalized world has given the BIS an increasingly important role in providing global financial stability… <<<

[So here we have a Chinese propaganda organ telling us that the BIS is in charge of all the central banks, including China's. This is in spite of the fact that the BIS was a joint creation of the London bankers and the Nazis (who are supposedly the bad guys the BRICS are fighting). I will share more about the BIS later in the article.]

>>> In 2007, the year before the financial crash, the BIS warned that the global financial system was becoming overstretched and that the banking systems in the developed world were coming under pressure. But although the BIS has great influence, it does not have the power to compel any central bank. It can advise and warn, but it cannot give orders, and it does not issue its own money. As we know, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the European Central Bank in Brussels did not act on the well-timed warning from the BIS. <<<

[This passage establishes the BIS's wisdom and foresight, as opposed to the foolishness of the national central banks. It also carries the implication that the BIS should be given the power to compel the national central banks to follow its wise guidance. Not mentioned is the fact that the financial crash was deliberately triggered by the very bankers he's writing about, and that the foolishness of the national central banks' responses was quite calculated. It allowed the banksters to harvest enormous wealth from the public and set up the pretext for the global institutions to step in and "provide stability."]

>>> Against that background, you would expect today that if the BIS issued another warning, the world would pay attention. At the end of June, BIS General Manager Jaime Caruana gave a speech at its headquarters that contained a strong note of caution: “A new policy compass is needed to help the global economy step out of the shadow of the global financial crisis…” <<<

[By  "a new policy compass," he means a transition from the current dollar-based global financial system to the new, more centralized SDR-based multipolar/multilateral financial system]

>>> In his speech, Caruana blamed the continued dependence by the advanced economies, led by the United States, on ultra-loose monetary policy in place of the necessary deep-seated structural changes. <<<

[Here, he's setting up the Federal Reserve (and the EU and Japan) to take the blame.]

>>> Caruana’s warning was reinforced by William White, head of the Economic Review and Development Committee at the headquarters of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. As one of the very few experts who accurately forecast the 2008 crash, while head of research at the BIS, White is listened to with respect around the world.

In a recent interview, he said: “Riskfree bond rates are at enormously low levels, spreads are very low … it all looks and feels like 2007. And frankly, I think it’s worse than 2007…” <<<

[Here, another "wise" person from the BIS is warning that we're approaching another financial crisis (that he and his buddies are engineering). It's pretty easy to be a forecaster when you're in on the plan. So if this year looks and feels like 2007, will next year be the next 2008?]

>>> But the US Federal Reserve Bank, the controller of the dollar-based global economy, does not agree with the BIS or William White. Several days after Caruana’s speech, Fed Governor Janet Yellen made it clear that she does not think that extremely low interest rates were the main culprit in the 2008 financial crisis, nor constitute the main problem now. <<<

[This is a very instructive passage. Note how the author specifically mentions the "dollar-based global economy." Also note how he again paints the Federal Reserve as the morons who won't listen to the sage globalists at the BIS. In this, he is setting up Janet Yellen for her upcoming scapegoat role, and he is tying interest rates to what will bring her down. The author says all this while failing to disclose that Janet Yellen is a member of the Board of Directors of the BIS, as is PBOC governor Zhou Xiaochuan]

>>> The disagreement between these two powerful financial institutions, the BIS and the New York Federal Reserve, has increased the risk that markets will crash as interest rates rise. Can China’s stability withstand another financial crash? Or would China emerge stronger? <<<

[Bingo! Here we are shown the trigger for the next financial crisis: Yellen will raise interest rates either "too soon" or by "too much" and crash the markets. "If only the wise BIS had had the power to rein in the Fed's foolishness sooner, we could have avoided this," they'll say. :-) Now let's read on and see if China will emerge stronger.]

>>> China certainly has economic problems… But the forward-looking, courageous determination of its government to grasp some important nettles in its economic reform program will make it a key part of any solution to another Western financial crisis. <<<

[Here, the author does the requisite ass-kissing to his Chinese hosts, then boldly states that China will be "a key part of any solution to another Western financial crisis." Solution, as in problem - reaction - solution. And the article has already shown us who caused the problem part of the equation: the unruly Western central banks, especially the Fed.]

>>> With the BIS and the US Federal Reserve Bank on opposite sides of the fence about global financial stability, the likelihood of another global financial crisis grows. But next time would indeed be different, because Western taxpayers would refuse to pay for another huge bank bailout, as they did in 2008-09. <<<

[So again, in case you missed it: BIS = good = wise = solution and US Federal Reserve Bank = bad = problem = another global financial crisis.]

>>> The emerging world, led by China, is economically in a much stronger position relative to the advanced countries than six years ago. Although in 2009 China may not have expected its sudden promotion to world power status, the country’s emergence since the crash as a global pillar of growth has significantly increased its global influence. <<<

[China didn't expect its promotion to world power status? Au contraire, they knew it was coming because the globalists promised it to them, just like they promised what comes next...]

>>> Another crash on Wall Street would reinforce the attraction of the renminbi as a store of value and anchor of stability for other regional currencies

It would underpin China’s global appeal as a peaceful force for stability in a volatile and troubled world, and hasten the re-engineering of shareholding in the major organizations of global governance, particularly at the World Bank and the IMF. Prepared or not, in the event of another crash China would find itself in a position of even greater global leadership and responsibility than today. <<<

[So here we are told that the next crash will be China's gateway to top dog status, and it will "hasten the re-engineering of shareholding in the major organizations of global governance, particularly at the World Bank and the IMF." This is exactly what I've been warning about. When the next crash comes, watch them break out their gold and other commodities to underwrite the global financial system in exchange for the governance changes.]

Now that we are done de-spinning the article, there are two things it brings up that deserve to be examined: the BIS and the Fed’s raising of interest rates…

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

This is the cover art for the BIS Archive Guide

BIS

…It proudly features Montagu Norman (the Bank of England Governor from 1920-1944, circled in pink) and Hjalmar Schacht (the President of the Reichsbank from 1923-31 and 1933-39, and Hitler’s Economics Minister from 1934 – 1937, circled in red). You’ll hear more about these two a little later in the article. But first, let’s have a look at a little piece of BIS history>>> Between 1933 and 1945 the BIS board of directors included Walther Funk, a prominent Nazi official, and Emil Puhl, who were both convicted of war crimes at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, as well as Hermann Schmitz, the director of IG Farben, and Baron [Kurt] von Schroeder, the owner of the J.H.Stein Bank, which held the deposits of the Gestapo. There were allegations that the BIS had helped the Germans loot assets from occupied countries during World War II.

As a result of these allegations, at the Bretton Woods Conference held in July 1944, Norway proposed the “liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible moment”. This resulted in the BIS being the subject of a disagreement between the American and British delegations. The liquidation of the bank was supported by other European delegates, as well as the United States (including Harry Dexter White, Secretary of the Treasury, and Henry Morgenthau), but opposed by John Maynard Keynes, head of the British delegation.

Fearing that the BIS would be dissolved by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Keynes went to Morgenthau hoping to prevent the dissolution, or have it postponed, but the next day the dissolution of the BIS was approved. However, the liquidation of the bank was never actually undertaken. In April 1945, the new U.S. president Harry S. Truman and the British government suspended the dissolution, and the decision to liquidate the BIS was officially reversed in 1948. <<<

So why were the British bankers so opposed to shutting down a bank with strong Nazi ties, you ask? Well, have a look at this UK Telegraph article (use this Internet Archive link if the direct link isn’t working)…

britnazi

I recommend reading the whole article, as it contains more juicy information than I can include in this post. Here are the most relevant excerpts for the topic at hand (with my comments in brackets)…

>>> The BIS was founded in 1930, in effect by Montagu Norman and his close friend Hjalmar Schacht, the former president of the Reichsbank, known as the father of the Nazi economic miracle. Schacht even referred to the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS is a unique hybrid: a commercial bank protected by international treaty. Its assets can never be seized, even in times of war. It pays no taxes on profits…

A key sentence in the Bank of England documents is found on page 1,295. It reads: “The general attitude of the Bank of England directors of the BIS during the war was governed by their anxiety to keep the BIS to play its part in the solution of post-war problems”[the bankers created the problem (World War 2), and they used the BIS to institute their solution (more centralized control of the world's financial systems)]

…And here the secret history of the BIS and its strong relationship with the Bank of England becomes ever more murky.

During the war the BIS proclaimed that it was neutral, a view supported by the Bank of England. In fact the BIS was so entwined with the Nazi economy that it helped keep the Third Reich in business. It carried out foreign exchange deals for the Reichsbank; it accepted looted Nazi gold; it recognised the puppet regimes installed in occupied countries, which, together with the Third Reich, soon controlled the majority of the bank’s shares.

Indeed, the BIS was so useful for the Nazis that Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank and BIS director, referred to the BIS as the Reichsbank’s only “foreign branch”…

Every other month it hosts the Global Economy Meetings, where 60 of the most powerful central bankers, including Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, meet. No details of meetings are released, even though the attendees are public servants, charged with managing national economies.

The BIS also hosts the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which regulates commercial banks, and the new Financial Stability Board, which coordinates national regulatory authorities. The BIS has made itself the central pillar of the global financial system. <<<

Speaking of these Global Economy Meetings, guess who attends them? According to the BIS website

“The GEM comprises the Governors of 30 BIS member central banks in major advanced and emerging market economies that account for about four fifths of global GDP. The members of the GEM are the central bank Governors from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States and also the President of the European Central Bank and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Governors from several other central banks attend the GEM as observers.”

So as you can see, beyond the public theater offered in Ukraine and the Middle East, and beyond all the East versus West propaganda offered in the mainstream and alternative media, China and the BRICS are dancing to the tune of the BIS puppetmasters just like everyone else. There is NO CONFLICT between “Nazi/Zionist” transatlantic bankers and BRICS bankers. In fact, Chinese and Russian banks (along with everyone else) are in the process of implementing the Basel 3 bank reforms put out by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which is hosted by the BIS.

According to this China Daily article

Under China’s implementation of Basel III guidelines, systemically important banks need a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 9.5 percent, with total buffers of 11.5 percent, before the end of 2018.”

…and according to this Russia Today article

Basel III – a new set of global banking standards scheduled to come into force in Russia this year – should become another stimulus for the country’s lenders to rely on its own funds rather than State support. One of the key Basel III requirements is tighter rules for a banks’ own capital.”

The whole East versus West propaganda campaign is aimed at giving the hypnotized public a fairytale storyline for all the changes they’re going through. It also offers them scapegoats on whom they can pin all their problems. The international bankers are going to crash the current system and blame it on the Federal Reserve, then they’re going to introduce the BRICS as the heroes who save the day.

In fact, part of the purpose for the recent creation of the BRICS Bank is to give the BRICS a lifeboat while the West founders from the crash. The BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement

“is a framework for the provision of support through liquidity and precautionary instruments in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures.

The objective of this reserve is to provide protection against global liquidity pressures. This includes currency issues where members’ national currencies are being adversely affected by global financial pressures.

The Bank would also provide assistance to other countries suffering from the economic volatility in the wake of the United States’ exit from its expansionary monetary policy.

All this being said, when will the crash begin, and how long will it last? Given that the last crash lasted from 2007-2009 and contained a shocking “Lehman Moment,” it stands to reason that the next crash would also be a slow-motion train wreck with an even more shocking Lehman Moment. If the propaganda setup for the collapse is any indicator, the train wreck and New Lehman Moment will involve the raising of the Fed interest rate by Janet Yellen and perhaps a black swan event like a false-flag cyberattack or terrorist attack.

Looking at the interest rate component, the Fed will be meeting this Tuesday and Wednesday (September 16-17), and that could give us an indication of when things might kick off. The general consensus of the Fed watchers seems to be that interest rates will go up starting in the summer of 2015, with some estimates saying as early as March 2015. Will this start the train wreck? And since the BRICS bank isn’t scheduled to start lending until 2016, the New Lehman might not happen till then. But then again, they can always surprise us.

source: http://redefininggod.com/2014/09/mainstream-globalist-propaganda-reveals-eastwest-conflict-is-a-farce/

Related read:

The Days of July – BRICS Still Seek SDR Solution

The timing of this is perfect. With all of the hoopla over the new BRICS bank and Germany’s decision to leave NATO in favour of BRICS, it seems that BRICS really is just another Rothschild institution, that will seek to implement SDRs as the global currency… read further

..

home
.

 

 

#MH17 – $30M reward for who shot down Malaysia airliner


USA Today

mh17

Part of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site in the village of Hrabove, in eastern Ukraine.(Photo: Alexander Khudeteply, AFP/Getty Images)

German private detectives, acting on behalf of a mysterious client, are offering a $30 million reward for evidence showing who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 that crashed in eastern Ukraine with 298 passengers and crew aboard.

Wifka, a private investigation firm in Schleswig-Holstein that specializes in fraud cases, says the offer is legitimate and the reward money is already being held on deposit in Zurich.

Wifka says on its website that the reward will be paid in Zurich or “in a different neutral place of the whistleblower’s choice.”

But even the German sleuths don’t know the identity of their client, who has operated through various intermediaries, including one with a Swiss accent.

Josef Resch, who runs Wifka, tells the German business magazine Capitalthat the firm has already been paid more than $50,000 in fees and holds a $650,000 retainer that it can claim if it succeeds in landing a whistleblower.

Capital calls the bounty the largest in history, surpassing the $25 million offered for clues leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

Wifka says it works on an “absolutely confidential basis” and offers to give any whistleblower a “new identity.”

It also advises any would-be tipster to be careful.

“The agency advises whistleblowers to take great care; e.g. to contact them through a lawyer,” Wifka says. “Details should not lightly be given away in emails or on the phone. A secure way of communication will be established for every individual case.”

Its website lays a precise list of what the client wants to find out:

•Who shot down MH17 on July 17?

•Who gave the order?

•Who covered up the shootdown? (Also, if it was by accident and not out of political, economic or military motivation)

•Who can provide details on the circumstances that led to the shootdown?

•Who was directly involved with the shootdown?

•What happened to the people that were involved with the shootdown? What happened to the weapon used?

•Who can name the people that cleared the shootdown?

The Malaysian airliner was en route to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam when it went down over eastern Ukraine, which is embroiled in fighting between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian separatists. Most of the passengers were from The Netherlands, which has taken the lead in the investigation.

The Dutch Safety Board issued a preliminary report last week that said the Boeing 777-200 crashed due to a “large number of high-energy objects” penetrating the fuselage, suggesting a missile was used. “There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew,” it said.

Ukraine and Western officials have accused pro-Russian rebels operating in eastern Ukraine of shooting the plane down with Russian-supplied anti-aircraft equipment as it crossed the Ukrainian border in July. Russia and separatist groups have denied responsibility for the shootdown.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told reporters that it was still too early to assign blame for the incident.

“We need to be careful not to draw conclusions too quickly,” he said. “Step-by-step, the experts are working to reach irrefutable conclusions.” A final report is not expected until mid-2015.

International investigators have been to the site and recovered the black boxes, but a full inspection of the site has been hampered by fighting.

Resch tells Capital that he believes his mysterious client is either politically or economically motivated.

He says he won’t rule out any possibility as to his client’s identity, ranging from an intelligence service to Russian oligarchs — hurt by Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis — who want to damage Russian President Vladimir Putin and drive him out of office.

Or, says Resche, perhaps it is the Kremlin itself that hopes to elicit false evidence through the offer that would pin the shootdown on the Ukrainian government.

Regardless, says Resch, he believes the $30 million reward will eventually hook a whistleblower.

“Everyone is for sale,” he says. “It is only a question of the amount.”

..

home
.

Paul McCartney Really Is Dead


The Last Testament of George Harrison

Shocking and sad in depth testamony by the late Beatle George Harrison

On 30 December 1999, 36-year-old Michael Abram broke into the Harrisons’ Friar Park home and attacked Harrison with a kitchen knife, puncturing a lung and causing head injuries before Olivia Harrison incapacitated the assailant by striking him repeatedly with a poker and a lamp.[155][156] Following the attack, Harrison was hospitalised with more than forty stab wounds. He released a statement soon after regarding his assailant: “[he] wasn’t a burglar, and he certainly wasn’t auditioning for the Traveling Wilburys.”

Harrison died on 29 November 2001, aged 58, from metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.(wiki)

gh

 

abbey

The album cover of Abbey Road is one of the many Beatles albums with clues encrypted about Paul’s death in 1966. George Harrison as the grave digger, Paul McCartney as the corpse shabbily dressed walking bear foot out of synch with the others and holding a cigarette, which means a coffin nail (local slang) , Ringo Starr as the Pall Bearer, and John Lennon in white as the Clergyman.

..

home
.