Tuesday, 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.
All of these suggestions are both completely valid and accurate.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 to the Rothschild banking dynasty; a trend that is to be seen in virtually every central and major bank in existence across the planet.
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, Libyacreated 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.”
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.
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” 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 withoutthe 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.
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 Reportregarding 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.