Written by Jeff Nielson Saturday, 06 April 2013 15:28
Ever since our governments perpetrated the Cyprus Steal roughly three weeks ago (the first of their “bail-ins”), I have been exploring the ramifications of this crime. My apologies to readers for any redundancy since then; however it has been necessary to cover this subject in a methodical manner in order to precisely and conclusively illustrate that:
-- Many/most other Western regimes already have their own “bail-in” rules firmly in place
-- The entire premise of the “bail-in” (i.e. confiscating money from peoples’ accounts) is flawed and fraudulent; meaning there could never be any rational or legitimate reason for this policy – making it a simple act of theft
Having established each of these points in previous commentaries; it’s now time to bring this analysis (in general terms) to a culmination: pointing out that the “bail-in” rules already in place do not merely contemplate stealing from bank accounts, but rather stealing any/every kind of paper asset from “the financial system more widely.”
The language used is unequivocal, the intentions beyond doubt. Why is it so much easier in retrospect to point out a “crime” plotted (at least) 18 months in advance? Because the bankers put out “policy papers” the way most people pass wind. Few if any of us have the luxury of wading through the endless pages of these documents merely to separate “hot air” from more of their devious (and illegal) plans.
It is now clear that the “centerpiece” of this planning is a policy paper issued by the Financial Stability Board in October 2011, entitled Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. The relevant language is spelled-out in Section 6:
6.3 Jurisdictions should have in place privately-financed deposit insurance or…a funding mechanism for ex post recovery from the industry of the costs of providing temporary financing to facilitate the resolution of the firm. [i.e. continuing to prop-up insolvent banks]
Obviously the only possible way in which deposit insurance could be a “mechanism for ex post recovery” is if these bankers/governments are stealing from peoples’ bank deposits. However, lest anyone holding bonds, pension funds, or other (paper) financial assets has been lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that only bank accounts are at risk, Section 6.5 should instantly torpedo that complacency:
6.5 As a last resort [the expression the Banksters began using back in 2008 when they began all this monetary insanity]…some countries may decide to have a power to…recover any losses incurred by the state from unsecured creditors or, if necessary, the financial system more widely. [emphasis mine]
The “financial system more widely” means any bank account, any bond, any pension, any equity; or more simply any paper one has in any financial institution.
Who/what is the “Financial Stability Board”? It is a very exclusive club. How exclusive? You can only join if you’re a Western Central Banker. It is the (official) voice of Western central banks, and thus it is above the mere “laws” enacted by our subordinate governments.