Usury, National Economies and Central Banks

International Bankers who have no loyalty to any particular nation or state lend interest bearing notes to governments. Whoever prints the money owns the economy. This is a deliberate imposition of debt upon a whole nation. Governments (simply middle men) collect revenue from their subjects to service the interest on the debt. The debt can never be fully repaid as there is not enough money in circulation to ever pay the debt, because the bankers only printed the loan amount (and not the loan amount plus whatever interest is due). The bankers, who create this money from thin air, have many ways in which they encourage and impose debt upon nations and societies. Of them all war is a favourite one as it is the most profitable. Their riches grow by increasing the "national debt" of nations. In fact, this is built into the system, debt will always increase and increase because more and more debt-money has to be produced to allow the economy to continue to function and for the original debt (and the expanding compound interest) to be paid. If people start defaulting on payments, banks may find themselves in trouble, especially those involved in high-risk lending activities. In the recent bank failures that have taken place(sub-prime mortgage crisis), governments bailed out those banks by taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to the banks to save them from collapsing. The end result is that the people of a nation are now stuck with billions and billions (more) to repay in future taxes - all so that the banks can continue to operate their business and continue to loot the people of their wealth through the interest-bearing currency scam! Iceland however, decided to stand up to these bankers and to make them pay for their own failure. The people disagreed to bail the banks out and the authorities are chasing after those in charge that led to the economic problems. That other nations should recognize the real secret of how nations and societies are looted systematically is a terrifying prospect to these bankers. That nations should kick out the [private] central banks and give control of issuing non-interest based currency to limited form of government (instead of private central banks deceptively named as the country's "national bank") is the quickest way of removing economic oppression and looting of the people. For this reason, any nation or society that tries to relieve itself of interest-bearing currency issued by privately owned foreign central banks, will be bombed back into the middle-ages by the end of the month. Al-Gaddafi, leader of Libya - as vile and wicked as he is - was in the process of uniting the African nations into a single bloc and putting in mechanisms to sell oil (and possibly other commodities) only for gold. That would shift true and real wealth (gold) to oil-producing nations and severely disturb the interest and debt based economies of so-called democracies in the West, just as it would give Africa a starting point to stand on its own two feet and control its own resources. That is another story, but the essential point here is that there is a mechanism for looting the wealth of nations and its secret is the issuing of private debt-based notes to a nation.

Here is one of many reports and commentaries that can be found on this matter.

Iceland Declares Independence from International Banks
By Bill Wilson

June 21, 2011 "Netright" -- Iceland is free. And it will remain so, so long as her people wish to remain autonomous of the foreign domination of her would-be masters - in this case, international bankers.

On April 9, the fiercely independent people of island-nation defeated a referendum that would have bailed out the UK and the Netherlands who had covered the deposits of British and Dutch investors who had lost funds in Icesave bank in 2008.

At the time of the bank's failure, Iceland refused to cover the losses. But the UK and Netherlands nonetheless have demanded that Iceland repay them for the "loan" as a condition for admission into the European Union.

In response, the Icelandic people have told Europe to go pound sand. The final vote was 103,207 to 69,462, or 58.9 percent to 39.7 percent. "Taxpayers should not be responsible for paying the debts of a private institution," said Sigriur Andersen, a spokeswoman for the Advice group that opposed the bailout.

A similar referendum in 2009 on the issue, although with harsher terms, found 93.2 percent of the Icelandic electorate rejecting a proposal to guarantee the deposits of foreign investors who had funds in the Icelandic bank. The referendum was invoked when President Olafur Ragnur Grimmson vetoed legislation the Althingi, Iceland's parliament, had passed to pay back the British and Dutch.

Under the terms of the agreement, Iceland would have had to pay 2.35 [GBP] billion to the UK, and 1.32 billion [EUR] to the Netherlands by 2046 at a 3 percent interest rate. Its rejection for the second time by Iceland is a testament to its people, who feel they should bear no responsibility for the losses of foreigners endured in the financial crisis.

That opposition to bailouts led to Iceland's decision to allow the bank to fail in 2008. Not that the taxpayers there could have afforded to. As noted by Bloomberg News, at the time the crisis hit in 2008, "the banks had debts equal to 10 times Iceland's $12 billion GDP."

"These were private banks and we didn't pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks," Iceland President Olafur Grimsson told Bloomberg Television.

The voters' rejection came despite threats to isolate Iceland from funding in international financial institutions. Iceland's national debt has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies, and now those same agencies have promised to do so once again as punishment for defying the will of international bankers.

This is just the latest in the long drama since 2008 of global institutions refusing to take losses in the financial crisis. Threats of a global economic depression and claims of being "too big to fail" have equated to a loaded gun to the heads of representative governments in the U.S. and Europe. Iceland is of particular interest because it did not bail out its banks like Ireland did, or foreign ones like the U.S. did.

If that fervor catches on amongst taxpayers worldwide, as it has in Iceland and with the tea party movement in America, the banks would have something to fear; that is, the inability to draw from limitless amounts of funding from gullible government officials and central banks. It appears that the root cause is government guarantees, whether explicit or implicit, on risk-taking by the banks.

Ultimately, such guarantees are not necessary to maintain full employment or even prop up an economy with growth, they are simply designed to allow these international institutions to overleverage and increase their profit margins in good times - and to avoid catastrophic losses in bad times.

The lesson here is instructive across the pond, but it is a chilling one. If the U.S. - or any sovereign for that matter - attempts to restructure their debts, or to force private investors to take a haircut on their own foolish gambles, these international institutions have promised the equivalent of economic war in response. However, the alternative is for representative governments to sacrifice their independence to a cadre of faceless bankers who share no allegiance to any nation.

It is the conflict that has already defined the beginning of the 21st Century. The question is whether free peoples will choose to remain free, as Iceland has, or to submit.