Written by Jeff Nielson Thursday, 11 December 2014 19:25
In Parts I and II; readers saw how all of the public debts of our nations (past and present) were the direct result of fraud, and thus legally unenforceable – on two bases. Firstly; the bankers of these Big Banks proclaimed themselves the world’s foremost financial experts. On that basis; they not only received privileged treatment for these Big Banks, they were recipients of confidential financial and economic information from our governments, as fiduciaries who were claiming to be acting in our best interests.
In reality; these Con Men never had anything on their minds other than burying our nations in debt, in their own best interests. However, based upon the well-established legal doctrine of “fraudulent misrepresentation”; these fiduciary financial “experts” owed us a duty of honesty. Having violated that duty (incessantly); the multi-trillion dollar IOU’s that the One Bank is holding (in the form of our national debts) are illegal and unenforceable.
But there is also a second basis for legally repudiating these debts, in full. As detailed by Republican Congressman, Charles Lindbergh (roughly a century ago); our governments were already completely in the service of this financial crime syndicate a hundred years earlier. Our political “leaders”, who also had (and have) a legal duty to represent us to the best of their abilities have been little more than the bankers’ bought-and-paid-for stooges for the past 100+ years.
Having our own representatives behave in a fraudulent (and arguably criminal manner) is an equally valid legal basis for erasing every cent of these monstrous, mountainous debts. There can be no argument that our public debts are anything other than illegal/unenforceable, merely a choice as to which legal ground to use as justification for their repudiation.
However, it isn’t only our governments who have been enslaved in debt. Much of our populations have done the same to themselves, as well. Indeed, countless millions of inhabitants across the corrupt West have already seen their own finances implode, on the basis of being no longer able to even service their debts – let alone repay them.
Unlike our public debts; we have no (corrupt) “representatives” whom we can blame directly for our own indebtedness, thus that particular argument for repudiating our personal debts is denied to us. But in law; one doesn’t need two valid arguments to succeed in any adjudication, one substantial basis is all that is required.
This then leaves us with the second basis for (potentially) repudiating our personal debts: the fraudulent conduct of these financial predators. Here, once again, the circumstances of our personal debts are not the same as with our public debts. Unlike the representations which these banksters made to our (corrupt) governments; the bankers (and the Big Banks they serve) do not portray themselves as our fiduciaries when we approach them for financial advice and/or services.
They articulate to us (or, at least, they are supposed to) that we are “responsible” for our own financial decisions, and thus they advise us to “read carefully” any/all financial documents or agreements they put before us. Does this thus absolve the Big Banks of responsibility (and guilt), as they malevolently buried 100’s of millions of generally well-meaning individuals under mountains of debt they could never hope to manage?
Written by Jeff Nielson Friday, 05 December 2014 14:06
Part I of this series demonstrated how/why all of our government debts incurred in recent decades are the result of obvious and egregious fraud. These debts currently cripple our economies (and societies) with roughly 25% of every revenue dollar taken in by our corrupt governments being utterly wasted, making interest payments to financial parasites – criminal parasites.
This means that not only is it morally defensible (and imperative) that we wipe away these recent, fraudulent debts, it can be justified legally, in clear and unequivocal terms. But the question which remained from the opening installment of this series was with respect to the morality/legality of our historical debts. Could we, should we also erase the debts incurred by past generations, after we wipe away all of the recent years of debt-via-fraud?
Part I provided a clue/argument on how we should adjudicate the debts from our past, in the form of a quote from the late Charles Lindbergh Sr., former Republican Congressman, and a champion of the people in his own era, nearly a century ago:
Our future and the future of our children have been doubly mortgaged by the wonderful profiteering schemes of the last eight years [1915 – 22], mortgaged on a larger scale than ever before. It is simply a larger installment of the great profiteering game, growing in its burden all the time and forcing us into greater and greater debt, debt that can never be paid under the present system of finance; but, on the contrary, will increase until by its own excesses it breaks down by forcing its own repudiation [i.e. Debt Jubilee]. It cannot much longer stand the strain imposed by its own plan. [emphasis mine]
There are two themes which dominate this quote. First of all; the debts incurred in Lindbergh’s era – the original debts of our nations – were the product of a “game” (or a scam, or a fraud?). The banking cabal of Lindbergh’s era, the (direct) ancestors of today’s banking oligarchs employed coercion: “forcing” us into debt, and (via the arithmetic of compound interest) ultimately “forcing” us to repudiate that debt.
Clearly the original debts piled atop our nations were also the result of malice, coercion, and fraud. The malice and coercion are explicitly implied by the quote; the fraud is implicitly implied. Were the banksters of Lindbergh’s era – who also professed to be “the financial advisors” of our governments – telling our governments that the economic path they were leading us down could only end in disaster and bankruptcy? Of course not.
They professed to have a superior understanding of “finance”, and (like all Con Artists) they claimed the subtleties of this “finance” were too complex to grasp – for anyone lacking their “expertise”. Lindbergh understood in his own era, as it is understood here, that the majority of “finance” is nothing more than the application of arithmetic.
Any entity which steadily and relentlessly incurs debt will go bankrupt. There is no ‘magical’ means of manipulating one’s financial management in a manner which contradicts the most-basic principles of arithmetic. Were the political leaders of Lindbergh’s era simply too stupid to grasp the arithmetic of compound interest: that piling debt on top of debt must lead to bankruptcy (and Debt Jubilee)?