Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
September 4, 2012
With any move made by the globalist controllers and their surrogates of
the Anglo-American NATO strong arm, it is safe to assume that there is
rarely only one reason for the implementation of any given plan. Thus,
the wars of conquest and aggression raging in the Middle East,
“Eurasia,” and Africa are by no means working toward one purpose alone.
Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan eleven years ago, a small but
increasing number of brave journalists, researchers, and activists have
been decrying the real reasons for the destruction of entire nations and
the tragic loss of life imposed by the hands of NATO and other
Anglo-American forces such as the puppet regimes located in the same
regions as the target countries. Among these vassal states are the
remnants of feudal monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and
others.
In the years since the first post-9/11 invasion, “real” reasons have
abounded regarding the various countries provided with “democracy” by
the United States.
These reasons include
vast oil reserves, oil pipelines,
[1] opium fields,
strategic positioning,
no-bid contracts for the
defense industry and
military-industrial complex, and
mineral deposits.
All of these suggestions are both completely valid and accurate.
Yet, as mentioned above, there is rarely only one reason for such an undertaking of military force.
However, there is one reason for military
intervention that is rarely discussed, even in the alternative media, in this context –
the goal of total domination by the private central banking system.
It is true that both debt and the control of currency is one of the most
effective means of enslaving an entire population without their
knowledge. Continually chasing financial freedom with no ability to
pay off debt
and save for the future ensures that a sizeable majority of the
population will not have the means, time, or energy to resist the
totalitarian methods imposed upon them.
Likewise, it is true that by controlling a nation’s currency, one
essentially controls the nation. Governments who are beholden to third
parties and private banks for their money are not governments at all –
they are receiverships existing solely at the pleasure of the
controlling oligarchy.
As Mayer Amschel Rothschild once stated, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”
Thus, when one takes a look at the worldwide banking system and, in
particular, the amount of countries with government-owned,
non-Rothschild affiliated central banks, one easily sees a monopolistic
system coming into view. In addition, when one takes a closer look at
those countries with government-owned central banks, independent of
Rothschild and major financier control, it becomes even clearer that
maintaining a government-mandated structure of currency and central
banking places a nation on a very dangerous list.
After the beginning of the
New Century, which truly
began in 2001,
nations maintaining some modicum of independence from the Rothschild
private central banking cartel have been dealt with in short and brutal
fashion.
Afghanistan was the first recent case.
Afghanistan
Prior to the US invasion, the Afghanistan currency situation was already
in disarray. In terms of central banking, the patchwork nation was a
prime example of what
not to do with a central bank, even a government-owned one.
Pre-2001, the banking system of Afghanistan was made
up of
six “state-owned commercial banks” that were largely unconnected with
one another and engaged in very little coordination. Because the
state-owned banks were used to fund the government entirely at the whim
of a corrupt leadership of tribalists with little understanding of
effective central banking, and because Afghanistan had spent the better
part of the second half of the 20
th century in a state of war, the Afghan currency had become
virtually worthless.
The banks lacked connectivity, reliable information on assets and
liabilities, and did not follow commonly agreed and accepted accounting
standards. Minimum capital requirements were set out in the 1994 Law on
Money and Banking, but '…risk management systems that would remotely
resemble modern banking' were missing (IMF, 2003 p124). Nonperforming
loans were not written off and no provisioning was made for them.
Managers were political appointees with little or no banking experience;
knowledge and capacity of bank staff were low. The operation of
commercial banks had been hampered during the Taliban era as banks were
not allowed to pay or to charge interest, in line with Islamic law. As a
result, banks had ceased all lending activities, which had moved into
the informal sector. Nevertheless, the banks had substantial assets
(primarily real estate) on their books; they were solvent and some
earned income from foreign currency deposits held abroad.
[2]
The makeup of the Afghan banking system began to change shortly after the invasion, however.
In 2003 and 2004, after much of the country had been thoroughly secured
for the establishment of institutions recognized by the invaders as
vital, various banking laws and regulations were put into place. Perhaps
the most important was the February 2004 law known as the DAB, or
Law of Da Afghanistan Bank.
The DAB established the authority of the new Afghanistan Central Bank,
Da Afghanistan Bank, to regulate and supervise all other banks within
the country, as well as having control over monetary policy. In
conjunction with the DAB, the September 2003 Banking Law also
established the ability of Da Afghanistan Bank to regulate and monitor
commercial banks operating inside Afghanistan, and was the original
piece of legislation that authorized commercial banks to operate inside
the country to begin with.
Shortly thereafter, in a nation where private and state banking was both
ineffective and scarce, the IMF states that the banking industry “grew
rapidly” after the Taliban was deposed. According to the IMF’s own
statistics, by 2008, banking assets were clearly flowing up to a
relatively few large private banks who were amassing most of the banking
business amongst themselves.
The IMF report states, “As of March 2008, the two largest domestic
private banks accounted for almost 50 percent of total banking system
assets. The combined loans of these two banks were 70 percent of total
commercial bank lending.” Obviously, Afghanistan has seen a trend of
centralization and upward mobility of assets to the largest private
institutions swooping down upon the war-torn nation.
What is more striking, however, is the fact that Da Afghanistan Bank,
the central bank of Afghanistan, is responsible for setting the monetary
policy of Afghanistan. This is key because it would seem that the
Afghanistan government should be in control of monetary policy – not a
bank independent of government control or oversight.
One need only take a look at the
Da Afghanistan Bank official website
in order to see how the same private central banking scheme has been
implemented in Afghanistan. Under the section entitled, “Basic Tasks of
DAB,” the bank states that its duties are to “formulate, adopt and
execute the monetary policy of Afghanistan.” Nowhere is there mention of
oversight by the Afghan government.
The
Law of Da Afghanistan bank, which was mentioned earlier, explicitly
states that the responsibilities of the Afghan central bank are “to
formulate and adopt the monetary policy of Afghanistan, including the
open market operations by Da Afghanistan Bank, the interest rates for
discounts and loans by Da Afghanistan Bank, and the types and levels of
reserves that banks are required to maintain with Da Afghanistan Bank.”
(It should be noted that these responsibilities are presented as those
of the Supreme Council, the Governing Board of Da Afghanistan Bank,
along with the Comptroller General.)
Furthermore, it is the job of the bank to “Print and issue Afghani
banknotes and coins,” another clear responsibility of any government
that is to remain independent of the control of private bankers.
In addition, it is a stated goal of the central bank to “Act as banker
and adviser to, and as fiscal agent of the State.” The implication here
is that the central bank, while often accommodating the State, is not
subservient to it, nor is it bound by any control of the Afghan
government. By acting as the “banker” of the State, it is also safe to
assume that loans made to it are not of the interest-free variety – it
is much more likely that the central bank functions exactly as the US
Federal Reserve, meaning that it is both independent of government
control, responsible for the issuance of currency, and approves loans at
interest to a government entirely capable of doing all of the above at
virtually no cost.
Iraq
Iraq is yet another case where private central banking could be argued
as a major factor in the decision to invade. It is also another example
of poorly executed central banking prior to that invasion.
In all fairness, however, it should be noted that Iraq has only enjoyed a
sliver of opportunity with which to experience growth since its
inception. After becoming independent of British colonial rule, the
country was forced to mop up the mess left behind by the imperialists
including falsely constructed borders, civil unrest, and corruption,
among many other issues.
Still, by the 1970s, Iraq was improving its economic lot, as well as its
education system.
Improvements were such that when Saddam Hussein officially assumed
power, Iraq had earned itself the designation of “developing nation.”
Shortly thereafter, Hussein nationalized Iraqi oil companies and put the
state-owned banks under his own direct control.
After the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, the Gulf War, and the
decade of merciless UN sanctions,
however, Iraq had lost virtually all of its economic gains. The
Iraq-Iran war itself depleted many of Iraq’s reserves, while the Gulf
War further damaged the state of the nation. Because UN sanctions forced
Iraq to move to their own currency printing machines that were greatly
inferior to those of the nations being previously used, the Iraqi
currency became subject to
increased levels of counterfeiting, thus, compounding the problem.
However, although Hussein had assumed direct control of the semi-central
banking system, the fact remained that the banking system was not
privatized. Indeed, there were very few private banks operating in Iraq
up until the point of the US invasion in 2003.
From the very beginning of the invasion, it was clear that forming a
privatized central bank for Iraq was a major goal of the United States
and its “coalition of the willing.” As
The Economist reports,
Rehousing the central bank is one thing. Rebuilding an entire banking
system is quite another. Despite the focus on military and political
matters, the task has been surprisingly high on the American-led
coalition's to-do list: even before George Bush declared that 'major
combat operations have ended' in May 2003, American advisers were
preparing in neighbouring Kuwait. The job is all the more formidable
because under Saddam Hussein Iraq had no independent banks to speak of.
From the CBI to the lending policies of the six state-owned
institutions that controlled most bank assets, the system was under Mr
Hussein's thumb. [Emphasis added]
Yet
rebuilding the banking system
is exactly what the invaders did. Of course, the new system unveiled to
the Iraqi people was slightly different from what they had lived under
for so long. There was no more Saddam Hussein to dictate monetary policy
at his whim, and no more state control over banks. Instead, the “free
market” would take the place of the former central banking system.
The term “free,” however, is a misnomer when referring to the Iraqi
Central Bank. This is because the new Central Bank of Iraq, now known as
the Trade Bank of Iraq, was completely restructured and privatized as
early as 2003. Slightly more obvious than the privatization of the
Afghanistan banks, it was openly announced that none other than J.P.
Morgan was chosen by the Coalition Provisional Authority to “set up” the
new bank.
As Rob Kirby of Market Oracle wrote in 2008,
In the energy area [crude] – J.P. Morgan was 'granted' the rights to, effectively, set up the Central Bank of Iraq in Dec. 2003:
J.P. Morgan Chase was chosen by the Coalition Provisional Authority
[CPA] to 'set up' the NEW Central Bank of Iraq [specifically, the Trade
Bank of Iraq ]. Take note how this TRADE BANK only became operational in
December of 2003:
• Trade Finance. The Trade Bank of Iraq (TBI)
was established in July 2003 to facilitate trade of goods and services
to and from Iraq by providing irrevocable letters of credit. The TBI
officially became fully operational in December 2003 and has a services
contract with a multi-international banking consortium led by JP Morgan
Chase. Since opening in December , the Trade Bank of Iraq has issued
or has pending 183 letters of credit, totaling $708.9 million in
imports from thirty-one countries. Letters of credit have been issued on
behalf of Iraqi Ministries as well as several state-owned enterprises.
In that capacity, Morgan was charged with developing the framework of
collateralizing movable and immovable property for the nation of Iraq.
The fact is that one of the
largest derivatives facilitators in the world is one the principal architects of the
Trade Bank of Iraq, plus it is also well-known that J.P. Morgan has a direct connection
[3] to the Rothschild banking dynasty;
[4] a trend that is to be seen in virtually every central and major bank in existence across the planet.
Libya
Yet, if developing an Iraqi central bank before the bombs finished
dropping seems a bit premature, consider the case of Libya and the
NATO-backed Libyan terrorists who announced the
creation of a new central bank of Libya
before foreign forces ever became involved.
Libya, of course, is an example of a much more successful model of
government-run central banking. Regardless of Ghaddaffi’s individual and
personal crimes or his iron-fisted nature, it cannot be denied that the
living standards of the Libyan people were far above that of any nation
in Africa.
Even the regime’s penchant for cruelty seems to have shown signs of
fading in recent years. After all, even as the assault on Libya began
taking form, the UN Human Rights Council was
set to praise Ghadaffi
on the improvement made to the legal protections afforded its citizens
such as “bettering its ‘constitutional’ framework” and “making human
rights a ‘priority.’”
Left to its own devices the Libyan regime had managed to take a country
mainly made up of desert and warring tribal factions and form a cohesive
nation-state which afforded its people with comforts not seen inside
the borders of “world leaders” like the United States and Britain. For
instance, in
a letter written
by a delegation of Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian doctors working in
Libya to then-Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Prime Minister
Vladmir Putin, stated;
During this time, we became well acquainted with the life of the Libyan
people and state with few citizens of other nations living in this
social comfort, as the Libyans. They are entitled to free treatment, and
their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment.
Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to
study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples
receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial
assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated.
Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in
Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread
cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture.
Regardless of one’s feelings about the policies mentioned by the
European doctors, Ghadaffi’s Libya also achieved some of the most
impressive and unprecedented environmental and economic feats in the
modern world.
As Ellen Brown of the Asia Times writes,
Even if that [European doctors’ letter] is just propaganda, there is no
denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government:
it brought water to the desert by building the largest and most
expensive irrigation project in history, the US$33 billion GMMR (Great
Man-Made River) project. Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in
Libya.
The GMMR provides 70% of the population with water for drinking and
irrigation, pumping it from Libya's vast underground Nubian Sandstone
Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers
to the north. The Libyan government has done at least some things right.
This entire expedition was made possible by the fact that Libya
maintained a central bank that was completely state-owned. Prior to the
success of the “peaceful Libyan protesters” (some proved to be al-Qaeda
extremists) with the help of the United States, France, and the rest of
NATO, Libya
created its own money,
the Dinar, through its central bank. Unlike “free” nations such as the
United States, which has farmed out its Constitutional responsibility to
private banks, the Libyan issuance of currency was an entirely
government-based affair.
In addition,
according to Patrick Henningsen of Market Oracle on March 28, 2011,
“Libya also holds more bullion as a proportion of gross domestic
product than any country except Lebanon, according to the London-based
World Gold Council using January data from the International Monetary
Fund.”
In fact, Ghaddafi was working toward backing the Dinar with the
country's vast gold reserves, thus posing a big threat to the world of
fractional reserve fiat bankers.
All of these advancements were thrown away and destroyed with the
NATO-backed assault on Libya and the subsequent murder of Ghaddaffi.
What did emerge, however, was the
new Libyan central bank.
Announced relatively early on in the destabilization campaign, the
Transitional National Council declared
the “Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in
monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the
Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi." It is
also noteworthy to mention that immediately after the official creation
of the new bank, the newborn institution actually
signed an oil deal with Qatar, an Anglo-American client state and brother-in-arms of brutality.
Geopolitics aside, the
very description
of the new Libyan Central bank, the Central Bank of Benghazi, leans
toward the fact that the new bank is the opposite of the old one –
meaning, the new bank is private. Furthermore, the new bank is not
beholden to the Libyan government (where one exists or may exist in the
future) but operates independently “as a monetary authority competent in
monetary policies in Libya.”
With
the appointment of a governor to the already-established Central Bank
of Libya, the control of the independent private bank is thus exerted
upon the assets which rightfully belong to the Libyan people.
Unfortunately, as of yet, the owners of the new Central Bank of Benghazi
have not been made public
with an official announcement. However, given the trend and given the
recent developments in Libya, one can feel safe in making certain
assumptions regarding the nature of the bank.
Sudan
All in all, the destabilization of Libya was much more up front and open than the
campaign against Sudan
in the latter years of the Bush administration and continuing through
the Obama administration. This might be partially due to the fact that
Ghadaffi was better able to mount a defense against the forces of death
squads, hordes of al-Qaeda terrorists, and NATO bombing campaigns than
the teetering government of Sudan.
Nevertheless, the end result was essentially the same. With the
inclusion of geopolitical concerns, the Sudanese breakup seems to be a
perfect example of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision of “microstates and
ministates”
[5] who
are unable to resist the demands of the world’s major powers. With
South Sudan now a separate and officially recognized country, the
ability to cut off the oil supply to Sudan as punishment for refusing
American directives is now a realistic option. South Sudan is, in fact,
the region of Sudan (as it was originally demarcated) that houses the
majority of Sudanese oil.
The fact that the US is
involved in destabilizing both South Sudan and Sudan is not a heavily debated claim. As Thomas C. Mountain wrote in his article, “
The US Plan to Destabilize Sudan,”
it is the United States which pays the bills for the Sudan People’s
Liberation Army (the South Sudanese national army). Furthermore, the UN,
under the cover of “peacekeeping” missions is flooding South Sudan with
Ethiopian “peacekeepers” who are quite obviously serving the interests
of the Anglo-Americans.
The interesting difference in this case, however, is the fact that Sudan
appears to have maintained a private central bank of its own throughout
the Sudanese civil war. Indeed, Warren Coats, the Senior Policy Advisor
to the Bank of Southern Sudan in 2007, wrote in his report, “
A Monetary Policy Framework For Sudan,” that the current policy of the Central Bank of Sudan was the control of the money supply. Coats states;
The next section of this paper presents a framework for control of the
money supply by a central bank operating in, or wishing to promote, a
market economy and adopting a market-determined exchange rate. This is more or less the policy regime adopted by the Central Bank of Sudan (CBOS).
For such a central bank, monetary control needs to be based on its
control of the total of the quantity of currency held by the public and
by banks, plus bank deposits with the central bank (base money), and its
influence over the creation of deposits in banks in relation to their
reserves. [Emphasis added]
However, as one of the first orders of business after South Sudan
seceded from Sudan and was officially recognized by the UN, a private
central bank was established. In fact, the South Sudanese Constitution
itself provides for the creation of such an institution.
After reading the
South Sudanese Constitution
as it existed in 2011, there is very little question as to whether or
not the central bank is private. The document states that the central
bank will be called the The Bank of South Sudan and that it will be “an
independent corporate legal entity.” The Constitution goes on to state
that the bank will be responsible for, among other things, “formulation,
conduct, and implementation of monetary policy” and “the issuance of
currency.” The bank has the “exclusive right to issue a currency” and
has an organizational structure very similar to the US Federal Reserve
with a Governor and Board of Directors appointed by the President.
Future and Current Targets
With
all of the lives lost, military action taken, and money spent, - if
central banking is, in fact, one of the main reasons for such
operations– it would do well for us to take a brief look at those
nations which currently exist
without the curse of
"international" private central banks. This should be done in an attempt
to connect the dots and predict future military or intelligence acts of
aggression.
While it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive study on the
status of the banking system of every country in the world, the
relevance of private central banks can, at the very least, can be
investigated for those nations who are the current targets of American
military might.
Syria
In this case, the most obvious and recent victim of the US/NATO
juggernaut is the embattled nation of Syria. So far, the most
religiously tolerant nation in the Middle East has been forced to endure
NATO-backed death squads and
savage terrorists (aka peaceful protestors as defined by the Western media), Western sanctions,
direct aid to the destabilizing agents by NATO forces,
covert operations by British and American intelligence agencies as well as French special forces inside Syria, and now the
growing potential for direct NATO military action.
Coincidentally, Syria is one of the last nations left in the world that
maintains a government-owned central bank. This fact has been the cause
of some consternation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In
fact, in 2006, the IMF actually published its annual
Article IV Consultation Report
regarding Syria’s economic developments. Among the recommendations made
by the IMF in the report were suggestions of changes to the Syrian
banking system. The report reads:
Progress toward this medium-term goal should start by having the central bank gain full control of existing direct instruments.
The central bank should have the right to decide on credit ceilings and
credit policies of banks with a view to ensuring a pace of credit and
monetary expansion consistent with maintaining price stability while
fostering economic activity and employment. Banks have to abide by all
prudential regulations. Beyond this, the role and responsibilities of
the central bank and the ministry of finance in exercising oversight on
the banks should be clearly defined. While the government could play a
lead role in choosing the board and the management of public banks, the
CBS should have the authority to evaluate and approve banks' policies,
and procedures related to the credit and investment.
Clearly, if these are the responsibilities the IMF believes the Syrian Central Bank
should have, then it logically follows that they are responsibilities it
does not have currently.
All in all, the Syrian banking system largely consists of
four state-owned banks and
fourteen private banks, mostly foreign banks providing services to the private sector inside Syria.
For at least forty years,
the state itself has maintained a total monopoly on the Syrian banking
system. Even when that total monopoly was broken, it was not in the form
of the privatization of the central bank, it was merely allowing
private banks to operate commercially inside the country at all.
Iran
Nevertheless, while Syria is the most immediate target of the NATO war
machine, it only wins that distinction by a thin margin. Iran, even in
some mainstream outlets, remains a close second. Indeed, in most
educated circles it is understood that Syria is merely a stepping stone
to the larger goal of an invasion of Iran.
How interesting, then, that Iran also maintains a
government-owned central bank.
One need only to read
The Monetary and Banking Law of Iran
to understand the fact that, like the authority granted solely to
Congress over coining and issuing currency in the United States
Constitution, the Iranian government is the only institution with the
authority to issue Iranian currency. In direct language, it reads, “
The Government is the sole authority having the right of issuing notes and coins and this right is hereby vested exclusively in Bank Markazi Iran Subject to the provisions of this Act.” [
Emphasis Added]
Although neither Iran nor Syria are showman’s samples of successful
central banking, it must be kept in mind that these nations have been
forced to endure regional and domestic destabilization, warfare, and
continuous economic sanctions for an extended period of time. Unlike the
United States and Canada, neither Syria nor Iran are graced with the
presence of diverse natural resources and industrial options.
Cuba
Likewise, Cuba, which has managed to stay outside the scrutiny of the
mainstream media propaganda efforts in recent years, also maintains a
100% state-owned central bank.
Yet, even though the Cuba card has yet to be played in recent
Anglo-American endeavors, the tiny nation remains designated as
dangerous threat to the United States and “democracy” the world over.
Indeed, it is safe to say that Cuba’s Castro regime has not faded from
the radar screen of the Rothschild banking dynasty or the enforcement
arm of that dynasty known as NATO and the United States.
North Korea
Lastly, it is interesting to note that the model totalitarian state for
the world under the coming global system, North Korea, lacks in only one
thing – a private central bank. Another example of
central banking
opportunities squandered by selfish psychopaths like Kim Jong Un and
Kim Jong Il, the fact is that while the society as a whole matches the
blueprint created for the rest of the world many years ago, North Korea
still represents the lack of total domination by the private banking
cartel which control the overwhelming majority of finance and industrial
sources. Thus, North Korea retains its place firmly on the list of
governments that will be overthrown, replaced, and erased from the
history books, as the New World Order is gradually implemented
throughout the entire planet.
Conclusion
As stated at the beginning of this article, when one discusses the
reasons for military action, invasion, and occupation from the point of
the view of the globalists who direct such operations, there is seldom
only one reason for any given action. However, when one considers the
information presented here, it would be foolish to rule out the
motivation of the imposition of private central banking upon the last
few holdouts.
Indeed, one need only look at recent history and the targets of US/NATO
military operations to see a distinct pattern. Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan,
and Libya were all countries outside the clutches of the international
banking cartel, and they are all countries which have been attacked,
occupied, and fractured by US/NATO power -- usually based on fabricated
excuses.
At the time of this writing, Syria, another country with a state-owned
central bank, is likewise being subjected to the Anglo-American
onslaught.
Although experiencing the political and financial ramifications of even
the slightest resistance to global banking interests; Iran, Cuba, and
North Korea are only waiting to be checked off the list in both a
literal and figurative manner.
Notes:
[1] Griffin, David Ray.
The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink Publishing Group. 2004.
[2] Due
to UN sanctions, commercial banks’ deposits abroad were frozen during
the Taliban period. [Footnote provided in the IMF report.]
Brandon Turbeville
