Tuesday, October 21, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

Belgium: Money-Laundering Toilet For Unwanted Treasuries

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

User Rating: / 15
PoorBest 

Yet another, massive fraud was uncovered in the U.S. Treasuries market recently, this time through the diligence of the ever-astute, Paul Craig Roberts (along with Dave Kranzler). While this clumsy money-laundering operation was briefly mentioned in a recent commentary which further exposed the fraud/lies associated with the Federal Reserve’s (phony) “tapering”, there is much more which needs to be said here.

As Roberts and Kranzler note in their original piece, the simple numbers involved make it clear we are dealing with a pathetically transparent money-laundering operation:

From November 2013 through January 2014, Belgium with a GDP of $480 billion [supposedly] purchased $141.2 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds. Somehow Belgium came up with enough money to allocate during a three-month period 29 percent of its annual GDP to the purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds.

As Roberts also notes; Belgium is another one of the West’s Deadbeat Debtors, with a (large) national debt, a budget deficit, a trade deficit, and a current account deficit. It didn’t have any money to allocate to the purchase of U.S. debt – let along forking-over 29% of its GDP in a mere three-month period. The supposed “purchase” is not only (economically) impossible for this debtor-government, there could be no possible legitimate purpose for such a (relatively) massive accumulation of any foreign debt.

It is a prima facie fraud, and thus (inevitably) a money-laundering operation. “Somebody” gave the Belgian government the currency to fund this sham-transaction. However, many notable questions remained unanswered in that original piece. Among the most important of these questions are the following:

1) From where did the ‘money’ come to fund this purchase?

2) Why did the U.S. government (apparently) feel compelled to engage in such a clumsy money-laundering operation?

3) Who dumped over $100 billion of U.S. Treasuries onto the market, in the span of less than a week – which necessitated this emergency money-laundering operation to prop-up the Treasuries market?

4) What will eventually become of these (fraudulent) bonds on the books of Belgium’s government?

In the original Roberts/Kranzler article; they strongly suggest who slipped the Belgian government enough funny-money to fund this purchase: the Federal Reserve. But this is only half an answer. Where did the Fed get the $141 billion, to (purportedly) fund this money-laundering operation?

This money-laundering took place at precisely the same time the Fed was claiming to be beginning the “tapering” of its own money-printing. As with Belgium’s deadbeat government; the Fed also did not have $141 billion simply “lying around” which it could allocate to that money-laundering operation, at that time. From where did the money come?

The Fed has not reported the creation of that amount of new/additional currency. It has not sold-off (supposed) “assets”, from which the proceeds could have been used to fund that (illegal) money-laundering operation. Indeed, the Fed itself is simply a massive toilet for worthless/fraudulent Wall Street paper. Ergo, if the Fed did fund this money-laundering operation, then it must have done so with unofficial – i.e. counterfeit – currency.

Of course, it wouldn’t necessarily be the Federal Reserve which counterfeited the money to fund this laundering of U.S. Treasuries. As Roberts, himself, notes; this purchase took place through the “Euroclear securities clearing system”. Thus it would be simpler (and therefore more likely) for this counterfeit currency to be (phony) euros originating from the ECB rather than (phony) dollars from the Federal Reserve.

As regular readers know; the European Central Bank is nothing less than a partner-in-crime with the Fed in perpetrating these endless monetary crimes/frauds, and both are instruments dedicated to serving the One Bank. With the Fed (very publicly) claiming to have started “tapering” its own money-printing; the bankers would have likely found it more discrete to use their European tentacle for this particular crime.

 

But why engage in such a clumsy/obvious money-laundering, where it is immediately apparent we are dealing with a sham-transaction? Even if this was an “emergency” money-laundering operation (due to the sudden dumping of more than $100 billion in Treasuries); it’s not like these criminals are new to this money-laundering game.

Indeed, the West’s “Three Amigos” of debt (the U.S., UK, Japan) have been playing this debt shell-game for many years. To avoid obviously/publicly being forced to purchase all (or nearly all) of their own worthless, unwanted bonds; the Three Amigos devote much of their funny-money to “buying” each other’s worthless/unwanted bonds.

It’s only this money-laundering menage-a-trois which has prevented the collapse of the Three Amigos’ debt markets prior to this latest Treasuries episode. So why not simply shuffle these $141 billion in unwanted U.S. bonds onto the books of the UK government, or Japan’s government? In these much larger economies, a sham-transaction of this nature could have been (more or less) hidden – rather than screaming-out “money laundering”, as would occur with anyone viewing the Belgian transaction(s).

Only two answers seem to present themselves. Either the One Bank is so worried about its larger debt shell-games being exposed that it didn’t want to ‘absorb’ all of these additional Treasuries in another, large (and sudden) gulp; or, the Banksters are now so (arrogantly) secure in our Crime Syndicate economic system that they no longer even worry about flaunting their money-laundering in such an obvious manner.

This brings us to the origination of this Treasuries-market crisis, which necessitated the Belgian money-laundering operation: the sudden/dramatic/unprecedented “dumping” of approximately $100 billion in Treasuries, in the span of less than a week. Clearly it was a move intended to create a “shock” to the U.S. Treasuries market and/or U.S. interest rates.

While Roberts refrained from naming-names, the “prime suspect” here is clearly Russia. First of all; by this time the Western bloc (and primarily the U.S.) had already been fomenting serious “unrest” in Ukraine – Russia’s closest neighbour, and a friend/ally. But more revealing was what occurred (geopolitically) immediately after this sudden dumping of Treasuries.

It was right after this that the “coup” itself occurred in Ukraine. It was right after this that the Western, Corporate media began their massive propaganda campaign against Russia, fabricating (supposed) misdeeds by the Russian government which include almost anything/everything except “war crimes”. It was right after this that Western governments began ultra-harsh/unprecedented “economic sanctions” against Russia.

Coincidence? Right.

Putting aside the events leading up to the Belgian money-laundering operation; there is still a larger question which needs to be highlighted here: what will become of these $141 billion in laundered-Treasuries? If the Belgian government were ever to “sell” these Treasuries (or simply redeem them upon maturity); the Belgian government and Belgian people would be the recipients of a $141 billion economic windfall.

As Roberts previously calculated; this would be a windfall equivalent to 29% of Belgium’s annual GDP. This is not the modus operandi of the One Bank. The bankers only steal from the people as they perpetrate their endless frauds/crimes; they never give. This leaves only two possibilities.

a)      There would be a second, future money-laundering operation necessary, in order to loot that $141 billion from the treasury of the Belgian government upon disposal of the Treasuries.

b)      These Treasuries will sit (and rot) on the books of Belgium’s government, and be simply rolled-over (in perpetuity) as they mature.

The first option is unlikely, to the point of being impossible. It is possible that not a lot of people would/will notice a $141 billion sugar-plum being deposited into Belgium’s (tiny) economy. But lots of people would undoubtedly notice a sum that large been sucked-out of Belgium’s economy – it’s simple, human nature.

This means that this $141 billion in Treasuries will likely stay where it is, forever. Belgium is now little more than a toilet for unwanted U.S. Treasuries. Of course, being a small economy; it is a “toilet” (Treasuries septic tank) of limited capacity. In other words; as the entire Treasuries market Ponzi-scheme comes closer and closer to completely unraveling, we can expect to see more “Treasuries toilets” springing-up in any/all nations which still call the U.S. government a “friend”.

Needless to say; the U.S. is running out of toilets.

Trackback(0)
Comments (2)Add Comment
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, June 12, 2014
Jim Willie has a theory that some of the dump may have come from the Saudis. Do you agree?


Jimha, no one has a crystal-ball here. But I just think given the particular TIMING of this Treasuries-dump that the evidence strongly favors Russia.

IF Saudi Arabia was going to betray its military protector in this manner, I think it would have acted more decisively. If it WAS the Saudis; what did they say to their U.S. 'buddies' the day after...?
jimha
...
written by jimha, June 12, 2014
Jim Willie has a theory that some of the dump may have come from the Saudis. Do you agree?

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form