Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Finance

Thread Tools
Old 29-05-2016, 03:41 PM   #1
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default TTIP, Colonialism and Venezuela

Many people have heard about the protests against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Treaty (TTIP), without knowing what it is really about. Basically the USA and European Union are making a deal to prevent free trade from developing countries.
As a current example of "free" world trade I choose Venezuela, where there are protesters in the streets, because they cannot buy food.

After the colonies were given their sovereignty, nothing has really changed. The colonial forces still decide how the colonies are exploited, under the guise of international law.
A nice example is the protective measures by the European Union. First they use tax money to support their industry, so that the third world cannot compete with the EU. The EU gets some of this money back, with import duties to ensure that the third world can neither compete in the Euro zone. Then our investors in their best philanthropic guise help these countries, it is only natural that they want to be rewarded. Here a description of how the EU uses protective measures against the third world: https://www.tcd.ie/iiis/policycohere...n-measures.php
As a logical result these third world "banana republics" get financial problems, so need to borrow money from the World Bank and the IMF to be able to come around (it's easy to provide loans, when you have the power to print money), for which in return they do exactly what they are told. With these adjustments - of course - their economy gets even more ruined.
One of the best tricks are the trade agreements between countries, at the discretion of the "independent" white judges. From 1959 on, the conclusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) for investments with developing countries became popular; in the early years these BITs were based on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947. In 1995 came the next big development in BITs with the General Agreement on Tariffs in Services (GATS), for investments in services. From the end of the 1980s on there was some kind of explosion in BITs; no longer only between developed and developing countries, but also among and between developed countries, to exclude developing countries. Developing countries got forced to agree on BITs, because without it was simply made impossible to export, while the foreign investors take their money away.
For the history of international treaties for investment see the story of Vandevelde from 2005: http://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/volume-12-1/van5.pdf
In the following story Anghie names exploitation of developing countries under the guise of international law "positivism": http://law.wisc.edu/gls/documents/to...olonialism.pdf
As long as there are crises, the large investors earn extra money. Any idea who cause the crises?

Here’s a short list of the consequences of TTIP in the world: http://www.degrowth.de/en/2014/08/tt...ould-be-aware/
Here an extensive story about the ISDS arbitration: http://corporateeurope.org/2012/11/c...1-introduction
If the EU and the USA sign the TTIP, other areas are excluded and forced to agree on BITs, so the colonial forces can continue to plunder them. According to the following report it can be expected that the economy of South America decreases with 1.5 to 5.6% and Africa with 1.2 to 4% as a result of TTIP: http://www.bfna.org/sites/default/fi...une%202013.pdf
Based on the arbitration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) multinationals can sue countries if they think their investments have yielded too little in return. The effect is that when countries take protective measures for environment, health, workers' rights or human rights, they are sued by the multinationals. If subsidies are provided or if subsidies are stopped, countries can be sued. As far as democratically elected parliaments have something to say, this is even further limited by the ISDS. It is the World Bank that decides on these disputes, in other words: by the ISDS arbitrations, the bankers (that are the biggest investors) become even more powerful at the expense of the taxpayer.
First the legal team of an investor looks for the most advantageous Treaty and arbitral tribunal for the claims to have been disadvantaged by a country. The ISDS disputes are judged by 3 arbitrators, of which both parties choose 1 arbitrator, who together choose the President of the arbitration tribunal. In order to give the arbitrators the leverage to judge arbitrarily, many treaties are rather vague. 69% of the arbitrators come from North America or Western Europe.
The most indicted country among ISDS is Argentina for hundreds of millions to billions, for the measures it took in 2001, the crisis in Greece was directed by the IMF and the World Bank and Greece was also indicted repeatedly. Most lawyers concerned and arbitrators claim an hourly rate of over 500 dollars (not even included the exaggerating of the time spent).
The next quote makes clear how independent the ISDS arbitration is, from a lawyer that bragged: "I've got a case right now in front of [a leading international arbitrator]. Every time I go to a conference, he's there. We read each other's books. My opponent on the case ... well, he hasn't got a clue [...]. Between all the partners in our group [...] we've appeared before every single arbitrator worth knowing. Not just once, but multiple times in the past few years and we have the inside knowledge as a result of that".
To ensure that the people do not know what is going on: both the ISDS provisions and TTIP negotiations are done in secret (how’s that for democracy?). An inevitable result of TTIP is that health care is privatised. Any idea of the consequences if the investors think they can make more money if the population is reduced?

It is the Board of Governors, in which all 189 countries represented, that makes the decisions in the World Bank. The catch is that these countries have a voting power based on their economic status. This means that countries that became rich by plundering the colonies now reward themselves with extra voting power.
The voting ratio depends on the matter concerned: 1) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBPRD), 2) International Development Association (IDA), 3) International Finance Corporation (IFC) and 4) Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). I have made a sum of the total voting power for 11 Western European countries with the USA, Canada and Australia. This shows that these 14 countries (with less than 15% of the world's population) have 56% of the voting power on whole. On the subject MIGA (including the ISBS, I suppose), these 14 countries account for a whopping 88% of the voting power. Also striking is that the GB and colonies - USA, Canada and Australia - together account for 36% of the control and even 69% for MIGA.

Of course I´m very proud that my home country the Netherlands not only had a starring role in the slave trade, but in 2014 came first in the whole world in claims for the ISDS. The following advertisement of my favourite law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, shows that the Netherlands is an ideal country to "settle" to evade taxes and sue Governments of countries based on the many beneficial BITs for the rich and corrupt: http://www.debrauw.com/wp-content/up...-Rebergen-.pdf
Theoretically, a company only has to open a mailbox to use the Dutch tax law and BITs. In practice, of course, it is expected that the right people get rewarded (which could even be named investment).
Venezuela was also indicted from the Netherlands by oil companies ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips: http://longreads.oneworld.nl/en/tag/ttip-en/

Venezuela, one of the largest oil exporters in the world, for years has been a country that exports more than it imports for (which should have made this country wealthy). In Venezuela there is both a shortage of products in the supermarkets and power cuts: http://www.infowars.com/scenes-from-...king-for-food/
After Hugo Chávez in 1999 seized power in Venezuela he nationalized the oil industry, because it would be unfair if oil was running out of Venezuela without the population benefitting. Later, in May 2007, he closed the door on the IMF and World Bank. In 2009, Chávez had to beg for a loan from the IMF, which obligated him to devalue the Venezuelan bolivar (causing inflation).
Chávez died in March 2013 and was most likely killed by the CIA. Even the CIA has acknowledged multiple attempts to kill Fidel Castro: http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/...chavez_eath-0/
If Chávez was murdered, he didn´t have cancer, but was poisoned and the Cuban doctors, that gave him radiation, chemotherapy and surgery no less than 4 times (!), were complicit to murder. Eva Golinger suspects a bodyguard of Chávez, Salazar, who after his death was granted asylum and federal protection in the USA: http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...ir-tracks.html
In 2013 the puppet of the elite Nicolás Maduro was helped to the presidency. Maduro effectively hampers the industry so that it produces less and less, then sells the imported goods so cheap that these are exported (back) abroad at a considerable profit, so that hyperinflation breaks out: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...236836920.html
The next masterful stroke of Maduro: selling oil and gold reserves. I would say that if Venezuela exports oil, it should be as rich as Saudi Arabia (of course only the lucky few take all the wealth). Selling the gold (e.g. to Citibank and Goldman Sachs) is about the stupidest thing he could do, central banks because they possess gold are allowed to print money: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/29/news...old/index.html
Because the underpriced products are exported to other countries, the crisis can spread across the continent South America (so that the rich investors can get even richer).

The State media calls this: international law, democracy, capitalism, free market and development aid. I call this: abuse of power, slavery, exploitation, corruption and organised crime.
I can see only one real difference between 2016 and the colonial 19th century: because of computer technology the value of a human being is at an absolute minimum.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2016, 02:51 PM   #2
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)

Because the bankers effectively run our world, they’ve created a society in which they cannot lose.
American banks only have to back up investments (or loans) with a cash reserve ratio of 10%. This means with an American savings account for 10,000 dollar, the banks get a present of 90,000 dollar. In the European Union the reserve requirement is even lowered to 1%, so European financial institutions could even invest 990,000 for 10,000 dollar. And this is probabably why Great Britain never took part in the Euro (GB has a 0% cash reserve ratio).
In this way the European colonial forces still rule the USA - the European banks are 10 times more powerful than their American counterparts. On the other hand: Brazil has a reserve requirement of 45%, so with 10,000 dollar Brazilian banks can invest “only”12,222 dollar. In 1978 Turkye had a reserve requirement of 62.7%, so with 10,000 dollar Turkye could only invest 5,949 dollar.
I’ll illustrate this with some examples.

You deposit 10,000 dollar on a savings account at an interest rate of 2% a year. I will use a conservative interest rate for the investments of the bank of 4% a year. At the time of the deposit the bank can place the 10,000 in the central bank and invest 90,000 dollar.
In 1 year time your credit has grown to 10,200 dollar, while the bank has made a profit of 3,600 dollar (so including your 200 interest, the bank can invest an additional 3,800 multiplied by 9).
In 2 years time your credit has grown to 10,404 dollar, while the bank made 7,552 dollar.
In 3 years time your credit has grown to 10,612 dollar, while the bank has made 11,874 dollar.
So in 3 years time the bank makes more money from the money you put in your savings account than your total savings. Probably the bank even gets an interest rate for the 10,000 dollar it holds in reserve with the central bank.

Insurance companies can use the same cash reserve ratio of (say) 10%. According to the following information insurance companies settle the bill you pay for only a small fraction: http://www.lawfulpath.com/cat/index.php#1204
In this example you pay a medical bill (to the insurance company) for 100 dollar, which the insurance company settles for 20 dollar (20%). The insurance company makes a profit of 80 dollar for which it can invest 720 dollar (not even counting your monthly insurance fee).

The previous is unfair but not money creation. When you borrow money from the bank, now that’s money creation. Don’t you think it’s strange that when you buy a house, the down payment goes to the bank (instead of to the house seller)?
In this example you make a down payment of 50,000 for a mortgage loan to buy a 250,000 dollar house. The bank doesn’t run any risk (with the 50,000 it can already invest 450,000 dollar) and of course: they will get the 250,000 dollar (plus interest). If you cannot pay, they confiscate your house (while you’ve paid 50,000 the bank simply created 200,000 dollar out of thin air).
Of course the created 200,000 dollar ends up on another bank account (for which that bank can invest 1.8 million). And you have to work really hard to “earn” the created 200,000 dollar (which makes you a motivated slave).

There used to be a gold standard, where central banks could only create money backed up by gold (or we only had to believe it was backed), but this was abolished in 1971. So central banks can print money without limitations: http://www.philosophicaleconomics.co.../goldstandard/
Central banks can also create money by simply lowering the reserve requirement or lending “money” to commercial banks.
Because banks can almost freely invest money they can always plunder a company and then file for bankruptcy (keeping the money). One major goal of TTIP is to liberate the “stricter” standards in the USA to the more “liberal” standards of the Europe for banking.
Please don’t tell a sole, that if we take our money out of the banks and refuse to loan any more money: all hell breaks loose...
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2016, 02:45 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 69 (36 Posts)

Hard to do much about this being so bound to the financial systems. But TTIP needs to be stopped regardless of financial history and structures.
Likes: (2)
truepositive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-06-2016, 01:56 PM   #4
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default LuxLeaks

In the Luxembourg Leaks (LuxLeaks) financial scandal in 2012 and November 2014 confidential information from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was made available that showed that tax schemes for multinationals in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland were used to avoid paying taxes (basically the kind of schemes De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek is advertising for the Netherlands). The confidential documents are available on the website of ICIJ: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembo...leaks-database
The European Commission decided that the tax deduction schemes for Fiat Finance from Luxembourg and Starbucks from the Netherlands are illegal state aid.
Since then the whistleblowers involved in this case have been accused in a trial by PwC for exposing this scheme. The following have to defend themselves in this court case: Antoine Deltour, Raphael Halet (both whistleblowers from PwC), Edouard Perrin (French journalist involved) and The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ: coordinated the release of this information).
This is the best story I’ve read on this scandal: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...-being-charged
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 03:33 PM   #5
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default John Perkins – Economic Hit Man

I cannot be the only one frustrated about all of these so-called whistleblowers that only reveal the not secret at all (remember CIA-operative Edward Snowden?).
When searching the internet for whistleblowers on the World Bank, the most important one appears to be John Perkins that has written a bestselling book about his life as an Economic Hit Man: http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/...mic_hitman.pdf

Perkins shares with the world that as an employee for Chas. T. Main (MAIN) he made up statistics to make third world countries loan money from the World Bank. The money was directly funnelled back to the rich companies in the USA. In this way the GNP rose, while the poor became even poorer and the countries were saddled up with a debt they couldn’t pay back, for which in return they were forced to sell precious resources (like oil) and vote in the United Nations according to the needs of the American companies. It would have been much more interesting if Perkins had presented some detail and evidence (for example about the rigged votes in the UN).
Perkins was much more than only making up reports. After he joined MAIN in 1971, he became chief economist already in 1972 and was again promoted in 1975 to become the youngest partner in MAIN's one hundred-year history (in his 20s). Perkins knows of course that it’s also the European investors to profit from the “loans” from the World Bank.
You only have to look at Iraq, even if you believe the official story about 9/11 and the bringing freedom and democracy propaganda, you must notice that’s it strange (to say the least) that after Iraq was destroyed by the embargo and American and British allied bombs, corporations from the same countries that bombed Iraq profited by getting contracts. It cannot be surprising that KBR/Halliburton (of then vice-President Dick Cheney) was the biggest profiteer of the invasion in Iraq (but what are these Kuwait companies on places 2 and 3?): http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-i...decade-1135905
The even bigger money was made by the oil companies (that one of these companies is based in Russia, proves that the USA against Russia rhetoric is a lie): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/bu...ia15.html?_r=0
Of course these are undeniable facts that anybody can find on the internet, and... more interesting than the “secrets” in Perkins’ book.

Probably the most dark “secret” Perkins reveals to the world is that Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldos Aguiler and Panamanian President Omar Torrijos were murdered (by the “jackals”) within 2 months of each other in 1981. This is an interesting claim, but unfortunately Perkins doesn’t provide any evidence (besides some quote from Graham Greene, Conversations with the General, 1984). Here’s what I found (there´s also a lot of information in Spanish that I cannot read).
On Aguiler's death it’s known that the Panamanian police reported that his plane was brought down by a bomb, near Loja, and then the national government immediately labelled it an “accident”: https://www.cuencahighlife.com/ecuad...ration-condor/
On Torijos’ murder there’s much more. Col. Roberto Diaz Herrera on June 8, 1987 said (Herrera was later arrested and also wrote a book): “that Noriega had conspired with Lt. Gen. Wallace Nutting, the chief of the U.S. Army’s Southern Command, based in Panama, “and with the CIA, to plant a bomb aboard the aircraft in which [Noriega's predecessor, and Diaz's cousin] General Torrijos was killed when it crashed in the mountains in 1981"″: http://liesofourtimes.org/?p=298
Herrera also implicated Col. Alberto Purcell, who reportedly was paid $250,000 by the CIA. Colonel Manuel Noriega by the way had been involved with the CIA since the late 1950s and was closely connected to George H.W. Bush, and then suddenly became a drug lord and dictator (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban had also been good friends with the CIA for many years by the way). In 1991 Noriega tried to defend himself in court by providing evidence (which wasn't allowed) that the US government was involved in the murder of Torijos and tried to assassinate Noriega himself: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/199...noriega-panama

Perkins throughout his book tells us that he feels really guilty for becoming filthy rich over the backs of the starved poor and all the while had plans to better his life (the road to hell is paved with good intentions).
In reality Perkins was warned by his mentor Bruno Zambotti, that got out of MAIN shortly before him with a handsome payoff. Then Perkins in April 1980 quit MAIN and became an expert witness for the energy sector (he doesn’t even claim this was for humanitarian reasons). Then after his beloved daughter was born Perkins decided he really needed to get involved in making earth a better place (for all of these eugenetics types this means getting rid of all inferior races). So in 1982 Perkins started his energy company Independent Power Systems (IPS) with the help of Zambotti. Perkins makes us believe this was the only one in the whole damn industry that acts environmentally correct. At this time Zambotti had a high-level position at the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). IPS was also financed by: Bankers Trust; ESI Energy; Prudential Insurance Company; Chad-bourne and
Parke (a Wall Street law firm with Ed Muskie as one of the partners); Riley Stoker Corporation. IPS got exemption from a special tax by the U.S. Congress.
From 1987 on Perkins got a lot of money from WECS for doing absolutely nothing (according to himself) and in the beginning of the 1990s Perkins sold his interests in IPS. During the 1990s Perkins noticed that a lot of indigenous people of South America are out of reach of the claws of the World Bank, so he started setting up some non profit organisations (NGOs) to help these people. Of course Perkins doesn´t mention that now that he had a bundle of money, philanthropy is the perfect way to evade taxes. One of the main NGOs Perkins set up in 1995 is the Pachamama Alliance. Pachamama was financed by one of the most popular philanthropists in the world, Rockefeller, while the World Bank has started similar “non profit” projects in the area, Al Gore is their second “follow” on Twitter and Pachamama is a TckTckTck partner of the United Nations: https://intercontinentalcry.org/fund...gative-report/

Of course it´s great for these indigenous to loan money from IADB with the aid of USAID to make their countries the beneficiaries of eco-tourism. This is the result of the help of Pachamama: a 1999 study showed that because the Kapawi employees work in eco-tourism they can spend a total of a whole 2 days per month at home with their family (mission accomplished I would say). You can clearly see how much fortune the indigenous gather in return for the eco-tourism (which of course is very good for the environment), in an advertisement for a nice trip into the vulnerable eco-system in Ecuador the tourists pay per person $3,475 and an additional $10 directly to the Achuar community: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/conservation/
Also interesting is that Van Jones was forced out of his advisory role for President Obama, after he was caught on tape saying 9/11 was an inside job, and then was hired by Pachamama: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...dical-campaign
Luckily I´m not the only one to see through the disguise of Perkins: Pachamama was forced out of Ecuador. Perkins defended himself in the media by claiming that the Ecuador government was pressured by the big oil companies to throw him out (like his financier Rockefeller?).

According to Perkins the 9/11 terrorist attack was the final straw that convinced him to write his book. Obviously Perkins knew he could make a lot of money in the war on terror. I advise everybody that has already read the book to read it again, but now with the foreknowledge that the humanism of Perkins is in reality eugenetics eco-terrorism.
Already in the preface of his book Perkins refers that he was warned by his teacher Claudine: “Then you'll have to choose. Your decision is final. Once you're in, you're in for life”. So even by his own admission Perkins couldn’t have stopped being an EHM.
Ironically Perkins even describes a similar trick: he had an article published in the Boston Globe “Colonialism in Panama Has No Place in 1975”, to criticise the imperialism from the USA. His mentor Zambotti immediately understood: “But I want you to know I think you're smart. Torrijos will love it; I do hope you're sending him a copy. Good. Well, these jokers here in this office, the ones who think Torrijos is a Socialist, really won't give a damn as long as the work flows in”.

Last edited by st jimmy; 13-07-2016 at 11:53 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2016, 03:50 PM   #6
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Greg Palast – The Best democracy money can buy

When I searched for “whistleblowers” on the World Bank I found Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank, before being fired and being awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. And the strange thing is that he – a tool for the corporate elite - really criticises the IMF.
See for example the following article “This, argues Stiglitz, is not only a betrayal of the ideas underlying the IMF’s inception, but it is simply bad economics”: https://clg.portalxm.com/library/key...?keytext_id=33
Why would Stiglitz criticise the IMF? To get the attention away from a real whistleblower! This is the most interesting quote I found “from” Stiglitz:
According to insider Joseph Stiglitz, World Bank staff meet some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a ‘restructuring agreement’ pre-drafted for his ‘voluntary’ signature. The Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.
Step One is Privatization – which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, national leaders – using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics – happily flogged their electricity and water companies. “You could see their eyes widen” at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ Stiglitz calls this the “Hot Money” cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: When a nation is, “down and out, the IMF takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them.
Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their “poverty reduction strategy”: Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank.

In reality this isn’t a quote from Stiglitz at all, but from investigative reporter Greg Palast (after speaking with Stiglitz). I recommend Palast’s book The Best democracy money can buy (2002): http://www.chemtrails911.com/books/T...0Palast%20.pdf
On his website is more interesting information: http://www.gregpalast.com/
The following are the topics in his book most relevant to this thread.

Before transitory heads of state (like presidents) meet at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) provides them with the details of their agenda. TABD pairs influential politicians to powerful CEOs. The corporate directors give the politicians a grade on “the scorecard”. In this way the big corporations can control politrics.
One TABD proposal would reverse the $5 billion judgment against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. TABD’s Products Liability Group that, under the guise of eliminating “non-tariff” trade barriers, takes aim at American citizens’ right to sue corporations.
The WTO’s penal system to keep the colonies in slavery is the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The USA unilaterally exempts itself from TRIPS, so US retailers can still import cheap drugs. The WTO requires, on penalty of sanctions, that every nation pass laws granting patents on genetically modified seeds and drugs. When Thailand tried to register traditional medicines as intellectual property, the US Trade Representative wrote that this would “hamper medical research”, so Thailand got nothing.
In March 2001, the WTO would design a system to replace democracy with article VIA of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS Disputes Panel decides if a law is “more burdensome than necessary”, in which case the WTO can simply set it aside.
Goldman Sachs chaired TABD when Peter Sutherland was president of WTO, and Sutherland went to Goldman Sachs after he left WTO.

The strategy to destroy economies is something like: take money out of circulation to crash the economy, then the big bankers buy the economy pennies for dollars, while in the meantime the country has been indebted, and has to do what the World Bank tells them.
In 1983 the IMF forced Ecuador’s government to borrow $1.5 billion to take over the private debts of Ecuador’s elite. In return Ecuador had to hike prices in electricity and other necessities, and eliminate 120,000 jobs. Then in 2000, 2001 to finish Ecuador off, it was ordered to: 1) raise the price of cooking gas with 80%, 2) eliminate 26,000 jobs, 3) cut wages with 50%, 4) transfer its biggest water system to foreign operators, 5) allow British Petroleum’s ARCO to build an oil pipeline.
In Bolivia some riots broke out, when Bolivians couldn’t get drinking water. To “help” Bolivia: Samuel Soria deposited $10 million on a Citibank account in New York, that never returned to Bolivia. Water prices, could rise with 150% under the new owner, International Waters Ltd (IWL) of London.
In 2001 Argentina got ordered to cut their government budget deficit from $5.3 billion to $4.1 billion. Taking 1.2 billion dollar out of the economy already in recession, did wonders: by the end of March 2001, Argentina’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had already dropped with 2.1% compared a year earlier. Argentina had to reduce jobs, wages, and pensions. While the IMF offered an $8 billion aid package - Argentina had to pay $27 billion a year because of their debt of $128 billion (to the likes of Citibank). The French bought the water system and raised prices up to 400%. And Argentina got threatened with sanctions by the USA to liberalise the pharmaceuticals industry.
In 1973 General Pinochet took dictatorial control of Chile, and destroyed the economy. The CIA, since October 1970, had helped Pinochet to oust president Salvador Allende. US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Malcolm Korry explained that US companies used the CIA as an international collection agency. In 1973 Chile’s unemployment rate was 4.3%; by 1983, after 10 years of free market liberalisation, unemployment was at 22%, while wages had declined by 40%. In 1970 20% of Chile’s population lived in poverty, by 1990 – when dictator Pinochet left office - this number had doubled to 40%. In 1982 and 1983, the GDP dropped with 19%, and foreign companies bought 85% of Chile’s profitable industries. The USA the State Department reported: “Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management”. The respected economist Milton Friedman called this “The Miracle of Chile”.
In 1998 —the World Bank, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank and the International Bank for Settlements — offered $41.5 billion credit to Brazil. The World Bank designed a “Master Plan for Brazil” to create a “flexible public sector workforce”: reduce Salary/Benefits; Pensions; Job Stability; Employment, and increase Work Hours. After the Brazilian real dropped with 40%: British Gas bought the SaoPaolo Gas Company, while Enron and Houston Industries bought the Rio and Sao Paolo electricity companies and a pipeline.

On March 24, 1989, The Exxon Valdez covered 1,200 miles of Alaska’s shoreline in oil. British Petroleum’s role has been somewhat overlooked by the state media.
In 1969 Alyeska, the Exxon-BP oil pipeline consortium, bought the Valdez oil terminal land, from the Chugach Natives, for one dollar. The natives got “help” from attorney Clifford Groh, head of Alaska’s Republican Party, that only a few months later represented Alyeska. Alyeska created sham emergency teams, listing names of oil terminal workers that didn’t know how to use oil spill equipment.
Before 1989 Theo Polasek had warned executives about an oil spill at the location of the later disaster and asked for millions of dollars for spill containment equipment. Although the law required it, this was rejected. When James Woodle prepared a report for the government about an oil spill at Valdez, his supervisor forced him to take it back: “This was not an oil spill”. Woodle delivered his list of missing equipment and “phantom” personnel to George Nelson, BP’s president for Alaska. In September 1984, independent oil shipper Charles Hamel informed BP of falsification of reports.

In the 1970s British professor Dr. Stephen Littlechild invented a scheme to privatise British electricity utilities. In 1990 the England-Wales Power Pool, went into business.
From Atlanta headquarters, Southern’s executives learned they could charge in “deregulated” England double the price in Georgia. In 1995, Southern bought up England’s South Western Electricity Board. The cash rolled in and American companies grabbed the majority of the British electricity sector. Although (or because) the British consumers were terribly overcharged, the IMF and World Bank required deregulation of electricity if countries wanted assistance.
The USA had a regulatory system to keep tight lids on utility monopolies’ profits, with the result that Americans had about the lowest electricity prices in the world. In 1996 California tossed out this regulatory system. The parents of Palast saw their energy bill rise with a whopping 379% in the first year of deregulation. California’s electricity watchdog claims that electricity consumers were overcharged by $6.2 billion in 2001. After PG&E bankrupted California consumers had to pay off the speculators for some $35 billion.

While Palast dedicates a lot of his book to criticise the dictatorship of US corporations, the British monarchy is arguably even worse than the USA. The Home Office doesn’t consider a payment to a Member of Parliament a bribe if it’s “remuneration” for services rendered. Great Britain has an Official Secrets Act, libel laws that effectively censors journalism, privacy laws protecting politicians, with the result that that there’s no freedom of the press. Even facts can be prohibited from being published.
Palast went undercover and got in touch with LLM and told them that he represented some wealthy American clients.
Derek Draper proudly boasted that LLM had given the US investment bank Salomon Brothers, a week advance knowledge, that the cap on total spending was 2.75% instead of the expected 2.5%. Salomon made a fortune.
PowerGen PLC wanted to buy a regional electricity company in violation of anti-monopoly regulations. Draper arranged a confidential meeting between a top adviser to Chancellor Brown with the chairman of PowerGen, Ed Wallis, which secured the PowerGen merger deal.
Roger Liddle is one of the important men in government, in charge of European affairs. Liddle told Palast that “Derek knows all the right people.” Liddle had been managing director at LLM, before he put his shares into a blind trust. Any new business Liddle gets Draper goes straight into his “blind” trust.
Here are some other deals in Britain Palast found out by going undercover: 1) Rupert Murdoch’s News International got valuable amendments to union recognition bills; 2) Tesco won exemption from a car park tax worth 20 million pounds per year; 3) Enron reversed a government plan to block new gas-fired power stations.

Palast dedicates some pages in his book to how the presidential elections of 2001 were stolen by George W. Bush, with the help of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush (George’s younger brother)
Where Bush officially won with a margin of 537 votes, Palast explains tens of thousands of voters were illegally prevented from voting, , most of which would have voted Al Gore for president. Greg Palast estimates that 52,000 voters were removed in Florida, because they were erroneously considered “criminals” without the right to vote.
ChoicePoint DBT was the company that purged “criminals” from the voting list. One of the tricks was to purge anybody with a 90% name match (for example: “Anderson” would make “Andersen” lose his vote). 179,855 ballots were simply not counted, depending on skin colour. For example: in Leon (a “White” county) one in 500 ballots was “spoiled”, while in neighbouring Gadsden, (with a high percentage Black) one in eight ballots was rejected.
Since George Bush junior became inaugurated as president: Colorado, Indiana, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Kansas, Montana and Washington have passed laws that cleanse voter rolls in a similar (illegal) way as Florida did in 2001.

I wanted to order this interesting book, but couldn’t get a regular (paper) book and instead ordered this later (disappointing) book of “Greg Palast”.
It focuses on the illegal obstruction of the “poor” in the USA from voting (6 million in the whole USA, instead of ten thousands in Florida). “Palast” concludes that people must take action to take back their democratic right to vote.
I conclude something else. If millions of people are illegally prevented from voting, than the USA isn’t a democracy. When you don’t live in a democracy, to vote is “stooopid” (in the words of the 2002 Greg Palast).

Last edited by st jimmy; 02-10-2016 at 03:50 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2016, 03:46 PM   #7
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Tata, ABN AMRO, Chatterjee, Soros

The following is both personal and has relevance to this thread, this is something I’ve witnessed myself. I haven’t found this on the whole internet, so this could be an exclusive story. It shows that when Rothschild controls everything, he cannot lose.

In 2002 plans were made to outsource the department of the ABN AMRO bank (in which both Rothschild and the Dutch Royal family owned a large share) for which I worked at the time, to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in India. The plan couldn’t fail: Indians receive less wages than the Dutch, and if ABN AMRO makes the same profit with less personnel the metrics improve (the company's profit per employee).
They could have won by doing this in a clean (legal) way, but they should have paid the 1500 Dutch employees they wanted to get rid off, more than a hundred of million euros.
In the summer of 2003 ABN AMRO replaced all the computers in the office where I worked and started the reorganisation “Inspiration” (based on CMM). Changing work processes under the guise of CMM was meant to keep everybody busy with useless activities, while we suddenly had to work in a different way (leading to burn-out mental diseases). The new computers acted strange.
In September 2003 they ordered me to work in 6 ICT-projects in 3 different functions simultaneously. Examples of harassments: stealing my wallet, middle fingers, throwing a cup of coffee over my clothes, toxic thea, yelling, intimidations, calling me names and a reprimand. In February 2004 I noticed that the office building was almost deserted. On March 1 I refused to go to work anymore and was fired. I have proof that ABN AMRO broke into my house in 2004 (also part of the reorganisation?).
On September 1, 2005 (when the reorganisation had already been finished) the outsourcing was made public: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4204174.stm
Labour unions, attorneys, journalists and judges were all cooperating with this ploy to get rid of employees.

The following conflicting interests, make it more interesting.
In 1989 Chatterjee with the help of Rothschildagent George Soros set up The (Soros-)Chatterjee Group (TCG). In 1994 The Chattarjee Group, Tata Group, Indian Oil Corporation and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation founded the joint venture Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd (HPL): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldia_Petrochemicals
In 2004 Tata Consultancy Services was guided to the stock markets by JM Morgan Stanley, DSP Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase. Member of Bilderberg Robert W. Scully was part of the direction of JM Morgan Stanley, together these 3 banks had some 30 members of the Council on Foreign Relations: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...ok-built-issue
In 2005 Chattarjee bought Basell, with the participation of Shell (also connected to both Rothschild and the Dutch Royal family) and Merrill Lynch: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...ll-polyolefins
In December 2006 it became known that Tata Steel was counselled by NM Rothschild and ABN AMRO (!) in the acquisition of the British-Dutch Corus: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...rgica-nacional
When in April 2013 Tata Technologies bought Cambric, not only Tata but also Cambric was advised by NM Rothschild (aren’t conflicting interests illegal?): http://www.tatatechnologies.com/about-us/cambric/
There’s even a connection between Soros-Chatterjee, Winston Partners and Marvin Bush (younger brother of George W.): http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-...on.cgi.55.html

Last edited by st jimmy; 09-10-2016 at 03:54 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2016, 05:03 PM   #8
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Moldova

Unfortunately Moldova doesn’t get much attention in the state media, but it is a text book example of destroying the economy by the banksters. Moldova is one of the former countries that came into existence when the Soviet Union fell apart.

The story is that the Israeli-born Ilan Shor used 3 banks in Moldova to steal $1 billion; compare this to its Gross Domestic Product of less than $8 billion. The conspirators first took control of the banks and then lent themselves nearly $1 billion, collateral-free. They transferred the money out of Moldova to banks in Latvia on accounts held by U.K.-based limited partnerships (shell companies); the money then mysteriously disappeared. Shor denied any involvement in the secret takeover and looting of these banks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-from-moldova-
Let’s see if we can understand what happened. Three Moldovian banks created $1 billion worth of “money” out of thin air, that disappeared and now the Moldovian people – the poorest country in Europe – have to repay this “money”. They claim that the “loans” moved through a “complex web of transactions and that the records of many transactions were deleted from the banks’ computers”.
This is impossible. Computers of banks are designed so that nobody can remove transactions (not even the administrators). Furthermore this is impossible without the Moldovian Central Bank helping to arrange this crime (creating $1 billion in loans in a single action?!).
Ilan Shor and Vlad Filat (prime minister from 2009 to 2013) are serving years in prison for their involvement in the theft of National Bank reserves. Vladimir Plahotniuc was/is the leader of the Democratic party of Moldova and was also accused. Plahotniuc fled the country to Geneva (Switzerland). In July, August of this year Mihail Gofman was lobbying in Washington DC: http://archive.is/yHqPo
It looks like these 3 are scapegoats for the bankers...

According to economic expert Gheorghe Costandachi the National Bank of Moldova (NBM) is intentionally destroying the economy. There are enormous quantities of liquidity in banks, but the NBM majors the mandatory reserve rates which will effectively make loans impossible. Such a strategy is pushing the economy to a grinding halt. The problems become even greater when Moldova also has to repay the disappeared $1 billion.
After the economy crashes the rich (foreign) investors (=bankers) can buy the economy pennies for dollars, while Moldova remains poor. The NBM governor could have stopped the robbery of $1 billion, but didn’t intervene. In Ukraine, the minimum wage is $240 a month, while Moldova lives impoverished at $85 in 2012 American dollars: http://jurnal.md/en/economic/2015/6/...nt-of-moldova/

The average yearly salary in Moldova is less than $2000 per year (that’s average, so the median is even lower). There’s inflation so the bills get higher, so people got angry and riots broke out. See this picture of September 2015.

Neighbouring country Romania offered Moldova a $162.5 million loan package in October 2015. After the first $65 million tranche Romania blackmailed Moldova by saying that it will not get the second tranche unless Moldova “undertakes a real fight against corruption, implements reforms targeting the justice sector and signs a draft loan agreement with the IMF”. Basically this means they have to let IMF and World Bank finish Moldova off: http://www.ibtimes.com/moldova-econo...uropes-2295822
Nearly 17% of the Moldovain population live below the poverty line. In response to the $1 billion bank fraud (by the Moldovian Central bank), the EU, International Monetary Fund and World Bank have frozen their financial assistance to Moldova. According to the US Embassy in Chisinau, protests highlight the frustration experienced by many Moldovans due to lack of reforms in their country. Yeah sure... these people cannot get food on their plate and they would worry about “reforms”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E...sts_in_Moldova

The Democratic party of Moldova have contracted the Podesta group (very close to the Clintons) for lobbying services in June 2016 for 600,000 dollars (of course it isn’t suspicious that this kind of money is paid for “lobbying”): http://www.moldova.org/en/democratic...obby-services/
It’s none other than the Soros Foundation of Rothschild agent George Soros that is monitoring the Legal system in Moldova: http://www.soros.md/en/event/2010-12-15
That’s the same George Soros that in late 1989 arranged with the Polish Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of Solidarnosc to bankrupt its industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debts. After the economy of Poland crashed the economy could be bough dirt cheap. An example is the steel facility Huta Warsawa that was bought for $30 million, but was worth at least $3 billion.
In late 1991 Soros arranged a similar plan with the Yeltsin circle for Russia. It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy (draconian cuts in state spending to an economy that totally depended on the state) into Russia. Since January 2, 1992, shock therapy was introduced with chaos and hyperinflation as a result: http://balder.org/judea/George-Soros...am-Engdahl.php

The World Bank has been “helping” Moldova since 1999 and claims impressive progress because the poverty rate was reduced from 72% in 1999 to 22% in 2010 (remember: an average year salary of less than 2000 dollar).
An estimated 18,000 pregnant women cannot buy food and need food aid packages because of the increase in food prices in the summer of 2008. The Strengthening the Effectiveness of Social Safety Nets Project is “helping” over 50,000 poor households to receive “targeted” social assistance. In a country of 3.5 million that’s a very large impoverished percentage.
Apparently much progress has been made by “the use of ICT as a tool for improved public services, greater transparency and efficiency”. An automated social assistance information system has been developed for the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family to maintain records of persons requiring social services. Read what this means: Moldavians cannot buy food to eat and now the World Bank has arranged that they all have computer files (Big Brother is watching them too!).
Where 50,000 are too poor to buy food the World Bank has rehabilitated over 40 primary healthcare centres. So the health care can guarantee the amount of poor people will reduce: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/fea...ldova-20-years

In this year’s Moldovan presidential election even a former World Bank economist - Maia Sandu – has tried to get elected. But it was Igor Dodon that won with a landslide: http://www.rferl.org/a/moldovana-fac.../28112323.html

Last edited by st jimmy; 15-12-2016 at 09:35 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017, 03:42 PM   #9
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Tax wall by President Trump

The Trump administration is working very hard to make a wall between the USA and Mexico: not a physical one, but a 20% tax on imports (that only starts with Mexico).
The bankers want us to believe that economics is really difficult. Please don’t think that if you understand the following 7 “steps to damnation”, you’re some kind of genius.

White house press secretary Sean Spicer explained that “right now our country’s policy is to tax exports and let imports flow freely in, which is ridiculous". For once I agree with Spicer: taxes are ridiculous.
According to economic insiders: Spicer is talking about a Border Adjustment Tax (BAT). Trump had previously described this as "too complicated" (but then again: what isn’t "too complicated" for Donald Duck?).
The GOP proposal allows companies to subtract the cost of labour, land and input goods, from the taxed amount. This could be either a scheme to give preferred suppliers the possibility to evade taxes or a ploy to give the USA the authority to spy on what’s happening in other countries (how else can they uphold this?): http://www.businessinsider.com/probl...true&r=US&IR=T

Import taxes will increase the prices in the USA – this is inflation.
According to Michael Gapen, chief economist at Barclays: "We estimate that a 20% border tax could increase year-over-year rates of core inflation by 0.5-1.0 percentage points and reduce real GDP growth by 1.0-1.5 percentage points”.
As a result of inflation, we – the slaves – have to work harder to make ends meet. A fight we cannot win.
Inflation gives the banksters the right to print additional money (the percentage of the inflation); which keeps the inflation perpetual.

According to Donald Trump and his ilk; lower taxes create jobs. That sounds reasonable when we hear this often enough, but this depends (more) on other factors. Now the Trump team tells us that increasing taxes will create jobs. Please don’t ask the president to explain this contradiction, this might be “too complicated”.
According to Michael Gapen a border tax would hamper sales, reduce the GDP (a recession). This means that the import tax would reduce the amount of jobs.
The result of rising inflation and no available jobs (a recession), is that the slaves have no choice, but to join the army.
When you look at world history it’s clear that in the bigger scheme of plans the USA isn’t destined to produce stuff, but to destroy by throwing bombs.
If the atrocities abroad become large enough will the USA look “great” in comparison?

The effect of a 20% import tax is that countries will look for other markets to sell their products (than the USA). This could decrease the trade deficit for the USA, but we really want the third world to work for us, so we want them to export cheaply.
Following the import tax, come the export subsidies (Europe has been doing this for decades). In this way the prices for the products from the third world go down. This will force the third world to sell to the developed world for lower prices.
This crashes the economy of those poor slobs in the third world.

As a result of these schemes the third world cannot make ends meet, and then they have to beg the World Bank and IMF for help.
The mission of these wonderful banks is to preach helping the poor, when in reality they are finishing off their economy. The third world gets deeper and deeper in problems while they also get indebted by the banksters.
Then the foreign investors (the banksters) step in to buy the economy pennies for dollars, to add to their growing world domination.

Higher taxes sound honest: we all have to pay equally for the great “service” of our government. But then comes the kick: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The elite use tax exempt NGOs, trust funds and Swiss bank accounts to evade taxes. Corporations can set up mail boxes in the Dutch Antilles or Luxembourg to flee from taxes. As a last resort they can even use their control over politrics to lower their taxes.
Because of the high taxes the small businesses simply disappear, adding to the ever growing monopoly of the elite.

For really philanthropic reasons the developed countries suggest the third world to make Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) for lower tax barriers.
This gives multinational to right to sue using Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). This is arbitration where basically the World Bank decides if a corporation is hampered by some law.
As a result democratically elected parliaments can only change the legislation when allowed by the multinationals. This is: power to the... banksters.
To ensure that this is really democratic: the ISDS provisions are made in secret.

Because of the effective monopolies: the big corporations (controlled by a small group of “investors”) decide where we work, what we wear, hear, eat, drink, and what price we have to pay.
Using BITs and the ISDS the investors force countries to privatise their hospitals. So now the elite have become God: they decide everything, including life and death.

Last edited by st jimmy; 06-02-2017 at 03:48 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 04:10 PM   #10
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Yemen

I suspected that the destruction of Yemen has been orchestrated by the terrorist IMF and World Bank: destroying countries under the guise of help: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=316318

The IMF and World Bank have been helping Yemen to destruction since at least the 1990s.
I have found a plan that details the strategy of the IMF and World Bank from 1999 to 2001 for Yemen: https://www.imf.org/external/np/pfp/...en/index.htm#I

First a short summary of this strategy.
The dirt poor Yemen must pay off their “debts” to the banks by increasing tax collection, while at the same time increasing prices. For example in 2005 protests broke out when the Yemeni government guided by the World Bank increased the prices of oil, diesel and gas with respectively 100, 200 and 50 per cent: https://www.dawn.com/news/148827/wb-...riots-in-yemen
Increase the power of the legal system to protect the financial institutions
Decrease subsidy, so what’s left of the economy will collapse, but on the other hand increase the spending for hospitals and education (so that only the good slaves will survive).

Following is my summary of the strategy of IMF and World Bank for Yemen in more detail.
Increase prices
raising subsidized prices despite lower world market prices (also for cereals), thereby significantly reducing subsidies, and by cuts in development expenditure (…)
the intensive civil unrest following the June 1998 increases in administered prices pointed to the need to enhance public awareness of the reform program to ensure that further progress on reforms is not delayed

Increase taxes
the taxpayer identification number system (TIN) will be extended beyond the current range of major taxpayers to medium- and smaller-sized contributors and will be enforced through penalties for non-observance. In addition, the need for computerization to enhance the effectiveness of the TIN's use will be reviewed”.

Reduce subsidies
in January 1999 the government eliminated the wheat subsidy by liberalizing the trading and pricing of wheat--well ahead of the initial target date--and plans to halve the flour subsidy through an increase in price early in 1999. The flour subsidy will be abolished in full by the start of 2001

More hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and schools
GDP for 1999-2001 are to be increased to average 8.2 percent for education, 1.6 percent for health, and 1.2 percent for social safety net programs. In addition, reform programs will be implemented in the education and health sectors to ensure better management of scarce public resources (…)
To support this effort, trade in pharmaceuticals will be delegated to the private sector by eliminating the government procurement monopoly effective by the year 2000

Increase repaying of debts and a strong legal system to protect the banks
The soundness of the banking system is vulnerable because of weak enforcement of prudential regulations, high levels of nonperforming loans in certain (mostly state-owned) banks, and a weak judiciary system (…)
government gives immediate priority to introducing the legal, judiciary, and regulatory framework necessary to establish a free market environment for private sector activity and investment (…)
A new Central Bank Law will soon be approved by the cabinet with the goal to become effective by end-1999. It will give the central bank greater independence and focus its mandate on price stability through changes in the composition of the Board of Directors, allow it to issue its own securities, if needed, for open market operations, limit public sector financing to emergency loans, grant it freedom to define and adopt its own monetary and exchange rate policy, and require greater accountability (…)
Accordingly, the reform program over 1999-2001 will include specific steps aimed at advancing reintermediation in a competitive market environment and in particular to unblock the loan recovery process. Measures such as requiring that all court decisions be made in writing and published promptly, strengthening enforcement through introduction of a bailiff system, establishment of a quantitative system for monthly monitoring of court operations, and reducing the fee for filing a case in court will be considered. The delinquent borrower notification system implemented in 1997 will be continued

And it’s not only the bombing and blockade that finishes the destruction of Yemen.
The situation is in turn used as an argument to stop the “humanitarian” aid to Yemen.
The banks simply block the transfer of money to import food. They don’t even disguise their sick plans!

In July 2016 importers couldn’t import food to Yemen, because more than $260 million of their credit couldn’t be transferred to foreign bank accounts.
In turn the traders must ship the money in cash to the food seller (for example by plane) to purchase food: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ye...-idUSKCN0ZU0F2

In December 2016 wheat imports to Yemen were simply stopped due to a “crisis” at the Yemen Central Bank. They can’t import because it has “no access to foreign reserves at all”: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ye...-idUSKBN1450H6
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2017, 02:29 PM   #11
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Philippines

I found this video in the following thread, but I think it’s more relevant in this context: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=317812

John Pilger’s documentary “War by other means” (1992) is about the wonderful efforts in the 1970s and 1980s by the World Bank and IMF to keep the world enslaved in debt.

Here’s a transcript of the video: http://wake-up.acordem.com/blog/26399/
(archived here: http://archive.is/PCucs)

Contrary to the myth, it’s the poor of the world who finance the rich, not the other way around. And this video explains how.
It’s really the continuing colonial war, blatantly ignored by the media. It’s been called a silent war. Instead of soldiers dying, there’re children dying - according to the UN, more than half a million per year.

The IMF and World Bank were setup at the Bretton Woods conference in the US in 1944. The World Bank claimed it would finance the reconstruction of Europe and then develop the third world. In reality they are only promoting the interest of the elite. That was true in the 1970s and even more so in the 1980s.
In the 1980s, the World Bank, IMF, US government and British government would blackmail “developing” countries by refusing “loans”.
Every World Bank official is immune from prosecution anywhere in the world.

The debtor countries have paid more than $1.3 trillion from 1982-1992, and their debt burden has risen by 60% in that period. If we don’t put a stop to this, this could go on forever with the debtor countries paying 12 billion dollars every single month…
In the year 1990 alone, the poor countries transferred more than 6 billion pounds net to British banks. On top of this, the banks were allowed tax relief; from 1987 to 1990, 1.6 billion pounds. About 10 times what the British donated to the third world.
In the 1990s, Britain effectively became the poorest European country. In 1992, 1 in 5 British children lives in poverty.

The documentary puts the Philippines in the spotlight.
In order to eat and feed their family, Eddie and his wife, must work at least 12 hours a day for a little more than 2 pounds. Almost 30% of the children born on smoky mountain do not live to the age of 5.
About one Philippine child dies every hour because of the debt crisis. The Philippines spends almost half its national budget on paying the interest on debt to foreign banks.

The year the World Bank declared the Philippines a special case for development, it lend Dictator Marcos more than 4 billion dollars.
The Philippines used to have more than enough food, but for reasons known, agriculture was structurally adjusted. An example is the Calabarzon super-project, demanded by the IMF, which grows food specifically for the export. The new factories will produce profits for foreigners, and… more debt for the Philippines.
Many farmers will end up homeless on the streets of Manila.

Arguably the most interesting is the nuclear power plant sham. The Philippines had to borrow $2.6 billion from the Export-Import bank to pay the Westinghouse Electric Corporation for the power plant on the Bataan Peninsula, which will never create a single Watt of electricity.
In July 1973, President Ferdinand E. Marcos announced the decision to build a nuclear power plant. In 1974, it was Westinghouse that got the deal by bribing Marcos. According to Filipino lawyers, bankers and Government officials, Dictator Marcos received most of the $80 million in bribes. The payment, first went to Herminio Disini, who laundered the money through Switzerland, and transferred most of it to Marcos.
In 1975, Disini was rewarded for his work, when Marcos issued a secret presidential decree that effectively put Disini's competitor out of business.

The deal was underwritten by the US government through the Export-Import bank and some private banks. The Export-Import bank was founded to help US business overseas, by providing loans.
William Casey, the later director of the CIA, then Director of the Export-Import bank, went to Manila and recommended Congress to give an initial loan so that the other banks would join to provide more loans.
In June 1974, even before Westinghouse had submitted a detailed bid, Secretary of Industry Vincente Paterno, described the Westinghouse deal in a memo to Marcos as “one reactor for the price of two”. It was later discovered that Westinghouse sold similar technology to other countries for only a fraction of the costs it billed the Philippines.

Westinghouse got the deal with an estimate of $500 million, then the project was delayed over and over again, until the price was around $2.2 billion. All things considered the final cost for the Philippines is estimated at $2.6 billion. Of course, the Filipinos have to pay…
After Marcos was overthrown in 1986, President Corazon Aquino declared the Bataan Power Station unsafe and it was closed forever. Later a US judge found evidence of bribery, which was then settled out of court. Westinghouse agreed to pay the Philippines $100 million. As part of the deal (?), the Aquino government then gave Westinghouse another $400 million dollars for further “work”, which were again borrowed from the Export-Import bank and has to be repaid by the Filipinos...
Since Aquino was brought to power, the poverty level was raised by another 10%, to 70% of the Philippine population.

In 1986, several Philippine ministers suggested that the Philippines' $26-billion foreign debt must be lowered. At the time, the government owed $1.2 billion on the Bataan plant project. The biggest creditor is the US Export-Import Bank, which advanced $550 million for the project. Other loans came from a syndicate led by Citicorp and from Swiss and Japanese banks.
In May 2011, it was announced that the plant would be turned into a tourist attraction.

Interest costs for the power plant, in 1986, were $210 million a year; 8% of the Philippines' total foreign debt of $26 billion: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/07/wo...ed=all&mcubz=1
(archived here: http://archive.is/ApLT2)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2017, 04:20 PM   #12
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)

The last couple of days, I've been checking if the links in my posts are still up and running. The following links were down...
Here are some "new" links that are active.

Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
If the EU and the USA sign the TTIP, other areas are excluded and forced to agree on BITs, so the colonial forces can continue to plunder them. According to the following report it can be expected that the economy of South America decreases with 1.5 to 5.6% and Africa with 1.2 to 4% as a result of TTIP: http://www.bfna.org/sites/default/fi...une%202013.pdf
I couldn't find this anymore.
Here’s another report that explains how TTIP will damage the South American economy: https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/b...powers-and-the

Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Venezuela was also indicted from the Netherlands by oil companies ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips: [url]http://longreads.oneworld.nl/en/tag/ttip-en/[/url

Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
On Torijos’ murder there’s much more. Col. Roberto Diaz Herrera on June 8, 1987 said (Herrera was later arrested and also wrote a book): “that Noriega had conspired with Lt. Gen. Wallace Nutting, the chief of the U.S. Army’s Southern Command, based in Panama, “and with the CIA, to plant a bomb aboard the aircraft in which [Noriega's predecessor, and Diaz's cousin] General Torrijos was killed when it crashed in the mountains in 1981"?: http://liesofourtimes.org/?p=298
(archived here: http://archive.is/hs0Vu)

Last edited by st jimmy; 24-11-2017 at 04:35 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 04:24 PM   #13
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Henry C. Carey – The Slave Trade

I’ve found an interesting book by Henry C. Carey (1793?1879), born in Philadelphia, on how so-called “free races” are enslaved. The strange thing is that it’s from 1853 (165 years old) and most of it is still actual. It really explains why the United Nations, World Bank and IMF were founded.
A lot of it is based on Adam Smith’s views. While Carey pinpoints a lot of strategies used against “us”, some of the solutions he presents miss the mark…

Under the Spanish system, labour is valuable so slaves continue to be imported. Under the English one, labour is valueless and men sell themselves for long years of slavery at the sugar culture in the Mauritius, Jamaica, and in Guiana.
England is engaged in a war against the labour of all other countries employed in other activity than raising raw produce to be sent to England, there to be manufactured into end products at the factories of her millionaires, who have accumulated their vast fortunes at the expense of Ireland, India, Portugal, Turkey, and other countries that have been ruined.
The nation that exports raw produce exhausts its land, and then it must export its men, leaving women and children to perish.

Cotton is produced in countries like India, Egypt, Brazil, the West Indies, and the Southern States of the US. It’s then made into cloth in England and becomes valuable. The trick is to keep the value of the raw material low and the end product high. In this way the rich of England become even richer, while the poor become poorer.
This also shows how deceptive calculations based upon statements on the value of exports and imports are; that always “prove” the growing prosperity of England.
If the people of Cuba, Brazil, India, and other countries produce cloth, iron, and other commodities for which they now depend on Europe, and thus diminish their need to export, it would increase the price of their products while making cloth and iron cheaper. This would make these “third world” countries more “free”.

Ever since India came under English rule, their condition has become hopelessly miserable. Cholera became very common.
The Hindu, like the black, is shut out from the workshop. If he attempts to make cloth, he’s heavily taxed, from which his wealthy English competitor is exempt. His iron ore and his coal must remain in the ground, and if he dares to collect the salt which crystallizes before his door, he is fined and imprisoned.
The sub-renter extorts whatever he thinks the unfortunate borrower could pay, for example 1% interest a week. In this way, no matter how large the crop, the poor borrower will never make a profit.

The very best parts of India were selected for the cultivation of the poppy. If the people refused, they were forced. The same company that forced them to grow opium, forced them to sell it back to them for the price they decided. It was exported to China.
In 1839, the emperor of China finally seized a huge amount of opium to be destroyed. Then Britain started the “opium wars”, to force the Chinese to repay them for the destroyed opium.

Britain calls her opponents “despots”, while the British elite are the real despots.
Portugal, India, Turkey and Ireland yield to the British system, become poorer and weaker every year, and their people more enslaved.
In 1801, the copyright and patent laws of England were extended to Ireland, and publishing books was stopped. As a result Ireland couldn’t compete anymore. Irish workers were forced to go to England looking for a job to pay the rent at home. It is common to blame the rapid growth of population for the poor state of Ireland, but in reality this wasn’t the cause.
The Irish went from being land owners, to tenants. The land passed from many into the hands of the few. In the days of Adam Smith there were 220,000 English land-owners, in 1853 only 80,000 were left, while all the land of Scotland is accumulated in the hands of only 6000 people.

In Britain children were sold. Girls brought the highest price; girls aged 12 to 18 cost $500-800.
The poor enter their children in so-called “burial clubs”. A small sum is paid every year by the parent, and this entitles him to receive a larger sum when the child dies. Many parents enter their children in several clubs. One man in Manchester had his child in 19 different clubs.
Parents are so miserable that they actually kill their helpless little offspring to receive the reward from the “burial clubs”.

In 1825, Germany exported almost 30 million pounds of raw wool to England, where it was subjected to a duty of 12 cents per pound for the privilege of being manufactured into cloth.
Germany, Russia, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, and some other states, are trying to protect their farmers. The King of Prussia tries to strengthen his people by enabling them to find employment, manure for their farms, and strengthens Germany by the formation of a great Union, that gives 30 million people the freedom of internal trade.
In contrast, all the measures of England in India are to enslave a hundred million. Of course Russia and Germany haven’t bothered England anymore since the first and second World Wars…

According to Carey, the way to freedom is increasing the value of labour and land. He proposes to export machines to (for example) Africa to increase the labour “value” of Africans. I don’t agree with these ideas…
The additional profits from using machines go to the same elite that control the manufacture of machines. In the 21th century we have computer technology that has reduced the value of a human to an all-time low…
Increasing the value of land, makes the poor: slaves of (the interest rates of) the banks.

The Hindu sells his cotton for a penny a pound, and buys it back as cloth at 18-20 pence.
The Virginia slave sells tobacco for 6 shillings' worth of commodities, of which he and his owner obtain 3 pence.
The poor Irishman raises chickens which sell in London for shillings, of which he receives a pence.
A pound of sugar which had yielded the “free” black of Jamaica two pence, exchanges in Ireland for 2 chickens or 12 lobsters.
It would be much better if labour and capital would be locally applied, reducing exports. The home trade, instead of import-export would increase prosperity.

Henry C. Carey – The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: why it exists, and how it may be extinguished (1853): https://archive.org/stream/slavetrad...1care_djvu.txt
(or try the PDF version (28 MB): https://ia800603.us.archive.org/6/it...mest01care.pdf)
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 03:46 PM   #14
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)
Default Dutch patent on Ethiopian grain thousands years old

I’ve found an interesting example of “bio-piracy”: the misappropriation of traditional knowledge of indigenous communities for the purpose of seeking exclusive patent ownership over the knowledge.
According to history books, between 4,000 BC and 1,000 BC Ethiopia was the first country to produce teff grain.

In 2005, the Dutch company Health and Performance Food International (HPFI) of Jans Roosjen secured patent rights on teff grain in the Netherlands and later Italy, Britain, Germany, and Austria. These rights will expire in 2024.
In 2007, the company stopped communicating with Ethiopian authorities.

Since then, the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) has tried in vain to claim the patent right through negotiations, public campaign and “legal means”.
Ethiopia's government finally filed charges at the International Court of Arbitration to get (back?) its patent right for teff grain: https://www.newtimes.co.rw/africa/et...er-teff-patent

Following is a longer story on this clear example of “bio-piracy”:
Teff is becoming quite the health rage, because it’s gluten-free, rich in phosphorous, copper, aluminium, thiamine, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates. Teff is also high in fibres, important in dealing with diabetes.
In Ethiopia, with nearly 90 million people, Teff accounts for about 15% of all calories consumed.

In 2005, Ethiopia agreed on a MOU that stated that this agreement will strengthen the position of Ethiopia as a leading Teff producer.
Requirements for a patent include novelty and an inventive step: http://www.academia.edu/31939275/The...f_Patent_Right

My “logic” tells me that as this grain is thousands of years old, the patent should be rejected.
But I’m no crooked lawyer and have found out the hard way that in our Brave new world the courts protect the big criminals…
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2018, 08:56 AM   #15
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)

Selling Brazil by the pound

Two-time president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva brought 30 million Brazilians out of poverty in only a few years. He could have easily won this year’s presidential election in Brazil.
But the banksters had a better plan; he was sentenced to 12 year in prison for money laundering: https://newsbase.com/commentary/brazil-braced-bolsonaro

With the support of Steve Bannon, Jair Bolsonaro is the big favourite to become Brazil’s next president.

I haven’t found any more information on the corruption probe against Bolsonaro’s Chief economic adviser, banker Paulo Guedes, who was educated in the US.
Paulo Guedes’ strategy sounds very similar to the strategy that World Bank and IMF use to strangle the economies of “developing” countries.

Paulo Guedes was one of the founders of: Banco Pactual, the Instituto Millenium (Millennium Institute), and Plano Real. Guedes has also directed several investment funds and companies.

I guess that Jair Bolsonaro didn’t promise to raise taxes but Guedes is planning greater tax revenues (or higher taxes)...

Guedes has promised to cancel the fiscal deficit (it will reach 160/180 billion reais in 2018) within a year. By selling Brazil by the pound; his aggressive plan of privatisation could bring about 800 billion reais to the State, leaving the Brazilian population in the claws of the investment bankers.

Guedes will introduce a new contributory system, so the (slave) labourers pay more to the pension funds, while cutting “gold pensions”, which will lead to a lower burden on businesses.

Guedes plans reduced interest rates, which supposedly is a boost for the economy, but of course only the big corporation will profit, and inflation will rise.

Guedes also support the “globalists” by increasing import-export, which will surely support the rich and corrupt - reducing import tariffs and creating international bilateral agreements: https://updatebrazil.wordpress.com/2...onaro-economy/
(archived here: http://archive.is/Vxvy2)

See Guedes and Bolsonaro giving it a thumbs up.

As an MP, former army captain Jair Bolsonaro voted against making an end to the monopoly on exploration and production of oil of state oil company Petrobras. He has described Petrobras as a strategic asset.
Bolsonaro’s surge in the polls, made Petrobras’ shares spike 10% in a single day, as investors bet Bolsonaro will give the company free rein. This month, Petrobras’ market value increased with $18 billion: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1MM1GS

For more information on how Steven Bannon, of Goldman Sachs, Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica, is rigging this year’s presidential election in Brazil: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322929
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 25-10-2018 at 09:12 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 06:17 PM   #16
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 1,383 (820 Posts)

William Engdahl - A Century of War

I’ve found a good book by William Engdahl that explains a lot of things that have happened from the end of the 19th century till the beginning of the 20th century…

Iran oil, the Ottoman Empire – WW I
In the 1870s, the German Reich stopped playing according to the British model for economic destruction. This made Germany a threat. From 1850 to in 1913, German total domestic output increased fivefold and the per capita output increased by 250%. Between 1871 and 1913, the German population saw a steady increase in its living standard.
After the report by the Koch commission, the Reichstag in June/July 1896 approved legislation that restricted financial speculation.
For most of the 19th century England dominated the seas. The emergence of Germany as a preeminent modern shipping nation, was threatening the British domination of the seas.

In 1882, the black heavy sludge we today know as petroleum “rock oil” had little commercial interest other than as fuel to light the new mineral oil lamps.
Britain’s Admiral Lord Fisher was one of the first to conclude that Britain must convert its naval fleet to the new oil fuel. He argued that oil power would allow Britain to maintain decisive strategic advantage in future control of the seas.
By 1905, British intelligence and the British government had finally realised the strategic importance of oil but had no oil of its own. Fisher was ordered to establish a committee to “consider and make recommendations as to how the British navy shall secure its oil supplies.

In 1889, a group of German industrialists and bankers, led by Deutsche Bank, secured a concession from the Ottoman government to build a railway through Anatolia from the capitol, Constantinople. In 1899, the Ottoman government agreed that the German group could continue with the next stage of the Berlin–Baghdad railway project.
Germany was also becoming a close ally of France, but then the Dreyfus affair was staged to sabotage the relationship between Germany and France.

For information on the Dreyfus affair: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322217

For Britain this was a huge threat to their world dominance. It would also cut Russia off from her western friends, Great Britain and France. It is not surprising to find enormous unrest and wars throughout the Balkans in the decade before 1914, including the Turkish War, the Bulgarian War and continuous unrest in the region.

For information on how the mass murdering “Young Turks” freemasons destroyed the Ottoman Empire: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=317922

In 1901, the Shah of Persia (Iran) granted the Australian William Knox d’Arcy by royal decree a monopoly for 60 years, to probe, pierce and drill in the Persian soil for an amount equal to some $20,000 cash and the Shah received a 16% royalty from the sales of the petroleum.
In 1905, British “spy ace” Sidney Reilly persuaded d’Arcy to sign over his exclusive rights to Persian oil with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Scottish financier Lord Strathcona was used as a front man by the British government as the majority shareholder of Anglo-Persian, while the government’s stake was kept secret.

By 1902 it was known that the Mesopotamia region (today Iraq and Kuwait) of the Ottoman Empire contained resources of petroleum.
In 1899, the British government offered “protection” to the Sheikh Mubarak al-Sabah of Kuwait.

By 1912, German industry and government had realised that oil was the fuel of the future. At that time, Standard Oil’s Deutsche Petroleums Verkaufgesellschaft (of Rockefeller) controlled 91% of all German oil sales.
In 1911, the young Winston Churchill succeeded Lord Fisher as First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill used Fisher’s arguments to campaign for an oil-fired navy.
In 1913, the British government secretly bought a majority stake in Anglo-Persian Oil (today British Petroleum).

On 3 August 1914, Germany declared war on France, and German troops entered Belgium en route to attack France; on August 4, Britain declared war against Germany.
When WW I erupted, Britain was effectively bankrupt, according to a letter from Sir George Paish to Lloyd George dated 1 August 1914:
The credit system upon which the business of this country is formed, has completely broken down, and it is of supreme importance that steps should be taken to repair the mischief without delay; otherwise, we cannot hope to finance a great war if, at its very commencement, our greatest houses are forced into bankruptcy.
Britain’s secret weapon was the special relationship with the Wall Street banking house of J.P. Morgan & Co.

By January 1915, 4 months into the Great War, the British government had named J.P. Morgan & Co. as its exclusive purchasing agent for all war supplies from the US. As purchasing agent alone, Morgan took a 2% commission on the net price of all goods shipped. By 1917, the British War Office had placed purchase orders totalling more than $20 billion through the house of Morgan.
It became a giant credit pyramid on top of which sat the house of Morgan. Firms such as DuPont Chemicals grew into multinational giants by their ties to Morgan. Remington and Winchester arms companies were also Morgan “friends”.’

Had President Woodrow Wilson not signed the Federal Reserve Act into law on 23 December 1913, it is questionable whether the US could have committed the resources it did to a war in Europe. In August 1914, the house of Morgan and the City of London shaped the US Federal Reserve System in the months just before outbreak of the Great War.
In August 1917, the Federal Reserve mobilised sales of Liberty Loans and bonds, to finance US government war costs. By 30 June 1919, these Liberty Loans and bonds totalled the breathtaking sum of $21.5 billion.
Morgan & Co. quietly shifted their private British government loans over to the general debt of the US Treasury when the US officially entered the war, making the British debts the burden of the American taxpayers after the war. But, in a great example of justice, Morgan had a major stake in the post-war Versailles reparations financing.

At the time of the Versailles peace conference in 1919, Britain owed the US $4.7 billion in war debts, while its own domestic economy was in a deep post-war depression, its industry in shambles, and domestic price inflation 300% higher after the 4 years of war.
The British national debt had increased more than nine fold, between 1913 and the end of the war in 1918, to the then-enormous sum of £7.4 billion.

During WW I, Sir Mark Sykes made a deal with French negotiator Georges Picot (the Sykes–Picot accord), under which Britain would get control over “Area B”, from what today is Jordan, east to most of Iraq and Kuwait, the ports of Haifa and Acre, and the rights to build a railway from Haifa through the French zone to Baghdad.
France got control over “Area A”: Greater Syria (Syria and Lebanon), including Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus, the oil-rich Mosul to the northeast, including the oil concessions then held by Deutsche Bank in the Turkish Petroleum Gesellschaft.
After 1918, Britain maintained almost a million soldiers stationed in the Middle East. By 1919, the Persian Gulf had become a “British Lake”.

In 1920, Morgan partner Thomas W. Lamont noted with satisfaction that, as a result of WW I, “the national debts of the world have increased by $210,000,000,000 or about 475 per cent in the last six years, and as a natural consequence, the variety of government bonds and the number of investors in them have been greatly multiplied”.

WW I was planned and succeeded in reallocating the raw materials and physical wealth of the entire world, especially the areas of the Ottoman Empire with significant petroleum reserves. In 1912, Britain commanded only 12% of world oil production through British companies. By 1925, she controlled the major part of the world’s future supplies of petroleum.
The newly carved Middle East boundaries were dominated by British government interests through Britain’s covert ownership of Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
Engdahl systematically claims that the Anglo-Dutch Shell is controlled by Britain. I have read that Queen Wilhelmina was “the richest woman in the world” at that time and the majority shareholder in Shell and Shell chairman Deterding was a Dutchman - I’m not convinced by Engdahl on this...

The Round Table, RIIA, CFR
The Round Table, founded in 1910, was anti-German and pro-Empire. Instead of the costly military occupation of the colonies of the British Empire, they argued for a repressive tolerance, calling for the creation of a British “Commonwealth of Nations”. Member nations were given the illusion of independence, enabling Britain to reduce the high costs of far-flung armies.
The Round Table included such notables as Foreign Secretary Albert Lord Grey, British secret agent Arnold Toynbee, and H.G. Wells.

The Round Table’s think tank, which was formed by Lionel Curtis in Versailles in May 1919, became the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House). The RIIA received an initial endowment of £2,000 from Thomas Lamont of J.P. Morgan.
The same circle at Versailles also decided to establish an American branch of the London Institute, to be named the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); initially composed almost entirely of Morgan men and financed by Morgan.

Treaty of Versailles – 1920s
Wall Street lawyer John Foster Dulles had authored the infamous German “war guilt” clause Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty.
John Foster Dulles calculated that Britain and the other Allied powers owed the US $12.5 billion at 5% interest. Britain, France, and the other Entente countries, in turn, were owed by Germany, according to the Versailles demands, the sum of $33 billion!
The figures were beyond the scale of imagination at that time. The sum, 132 billion gold marks, was finally decided in May 1921.

Since Versailles, the Reichsbank printed money to cover the state deficits, inflation was rising and Versailles had stripped Germany of her most vital economic resources. All her valuable colonies, her entire merchant fleet, a fifth of her river transport fleet, a quarter of her fishing fleet, 5,000 locomotives, 150,000 railroad cars and 5,000 motor trucks were taken by the Allied powers (most of it by Britain).

The French were given the 25% share of the Deutsche Bank in the old Turkish Petroleum Gesellschaft by Versailles.
The remaining 75% of the huge Mesopotamian oil concession was directly in the hands of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Royal Dutch Shell.
Henri Deterding’s Royal Dutch Shell had an iron grip on the oil concessions of the Dutch East Indies, Persia, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and most of the Middle East.

The Sinclair Refining Company, with son of the former president Theodore Roosevelt Jr. on its board and his brother, Archibald Roosevelt, aas vice president of Sinclair Oil, secured the prised Baku oil concession (from under the nose of Royal Dutch Shell). William Boyce Thompson, director of Rockefeller’s Chase Bank in New York, was also on Sinclair’s board.
But then suddenly in April 1922, the Teapot Dome scandal erupted, implicating Sinclair, Fall, and even President Harding. Within a year Harding himself had died under strange circumstances. The Coolidge presidency dropped Sinclair and the Baku project, and plans to recognise the Soviet Union.

In 1922, Walther Rathenau was making a deal with the communist Soviet Union that in return for leniency on the war reparations claims on Germany, Germany would sell industrial technology to the Soviet Union.
Within 2 days of its formal announcement, on 18 April at Genoa, the German delegation was presented with an Allied note of protest that Germany had negotiated the Russian accord “behind the backs” of the Reparations Committee.
On 22 June 1922 (something numeric 6/22/’22?), Walther Rathenau was assassinated. Following the murder of Rathenau, the gold mark rate by July 1922 plunged to 493 Marks per US dollar, by December, the Mark had fallen to 7,592 to the dollar.

Then, in January 1923, the Reparations Committee voted 3 to 1 that Germany was in default of her reparations payments. On January 11, Poincaré ordered the military forces of France, with participation from Belgium and Italy, to occupy German industrial Ruhr by force. It took until the end of 1923 for French troops and engineers to bring production in the Ruhr to even a third of the former level of 1922.
In a smart move Britain had formally opposed France, Belgium and even the newly installed Mussolini government of Italy (!). Germany ceased all reparation payments to France, Belgium and Italy for the duration of the occupation, but maintained its payments and deliveries to Britain.
Directly after the Ruhr occupation, in January, the Mark dropped to 18,000 to the dollar; by July, the Mark had collapsed to 353,000 per dollar; in August, 1 Mark was worth $4.6 million; on 15 November 1922, the Mark was at 4.2 trillion per dollar. The savings of the entire population were destroyed.

In October 1923, US secretary of state Charles Evans Hughes, former chief counsel to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, recommended a new scheme to President Calvin Coolidge to continue the reparations pyramid of debt collection which had been shaken since the April 1922 Rapallo shock. On 1 September 1924, the Dawes reparations plan formally began.
Under the Dawes Plan, Germany paid reparations for 5 years, until 1929. At the end of 1929, she owed more than at the beginning.
With their risk thus all but nil, the London and New York banks began a vastly profitable lending to Germany, money which was recycled back to the banks of New York and London in the form of reparations with commission and interest. It was a vast international credit pyramid at the top of which sat New York and ultimately the City of London.

The seven sisters oil cartel
In 1927/1928, a peace agreement was signed between the major Anglo-American oil corporations at the Scottish castle of Shell’s Henri Deterding - the “As Is” or Achnacarry agreement. John Cadman for the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. and Walter Teagle president of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil were also present.
British and American oil majors agreed to accept the existing market divisions, end destructive competition, and to set a secret world cartel price.
By 1932, all 7 major Anglo-American companies “The Seven Sisters” had joined the Achnacarry cartel — Esso; Mobil; Gulf Oil; Texaco; Standard of California; Royal Dutch Shell; and Anglo-Persian Oil Co.

Wall Street crash, Montagu Norman, Creditanstalt – WW II
In 1929, governor of the Bank of England Montagu Norman asked the governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, George Harrison, to raise U.S. interest rate levels. This later caused the Wall Street stock market crash in October 1929.

In 1931, France ordered its banks to cut short-term credit lines to Creditanstalt, following rumours of a run on the deposits of Creditanstalt (owned by the Rothschild family) broke in the Vienna press, in May 1931, this toppled the fragile Creditanstalt and a credit crisis shook all of Europe.
The man who controlled US monetary policy at the time, former Morgan banker Benjamin Strong, an intimate personal friend of Britain’s Montagu Norman, met with Volpi and the Bank of Italy governor, Bonaldo Stringher, to dictate the Italian “stabilisation” program. The ensuing banking crisis, economic depression and the tragic developments in Austria and Germany were dictated virtually to the letter by Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, the governor of the New York Federal Reserve, George Harrison, and the house of Morgan and friends in Wall Street.

Capital began to flow out of Germany in ever greater amounts. On the demand of Montagu Norman and George Harrison, the new Reichsbank President Hans Luther imposed rigorous credit austerity and tightening in the German capital markets to let the collapse of the large German banks continue.
By July 1931, some 2 months after the collapse of the Vienna Creditanstalt, the Basle Nationalzeitung reported that the Danat-Bank was “in difficulties”, which caused a full panic run so it also collapsed.

After their first meeting in 1924 until Norman’s death in 1945, Hjalmar Schacht and governor of the Bank of England Montagu Norman were close friends.
In 1931, the German Alfred Rosenberg travelled to Britain to meet the editor in chief of the influential London Times, Geoffrey Dawson, that gave Hitler invaluable positive publicity. More important were his meetings with Montagu Norman and Henri Deterding. The introduction to Norman came from Hjalmar Schacht.
The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933, he went directly to the country home in Ascot of chairman of Shell “Sir” Henri Deterding, arguably the world’s most influential businessman. Royal Dutch Shell secretly had intimate contact with, and provided support to the German Nazis.
In early 1933, Montagu Norman quickly strengthened the Hitler government with vital Bank of England credit. Norman also visited to Berlin in May 1934 to arrange further secret financial stabilisation for the Nazi regime. Hitler made Norman’s friend Schacht both his minister of economics and president of the Reichsbank.

For more on who brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=320874

Iran 1941-1954 - Mossadegh and the Shah
Britain, through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, retained a stranglehold on Iran throughout the first half of the 20th century.
During the Second World War, Stalin’s Soviet Union assisted Britain to invade Iran. A month after British and Russian forces occupied Iran in August 1941, the Shah abdicated in favour of his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who was disposed to accommodate the Anglo-Russian occupation.
Tens of thousands of Iranians died of hunger while 100,000 Russian and 70,000 British and Indian troops were given priority in supplies.
General M. Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the commander of the US forces in the 1990–91 Desert Storm) trained Iranian national police force during a six-year period, until 1948.

Russia was granted an exclusive oil concession in the northern part of Iran bordering Azerbaijan, while Royal Dutch Shell got another concession. In the midst of selling Iran to the oil vultures, in December 1944 the Iranian leader, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, introduced a bill in the Iranian parliament which would prohibit oil negotiations with foreign countries.
The resolution passed, but it didn’t decide on the concession of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in southern Iran, from all the way back in 1901.

In 1947, the government of Iran suggested that the original concession must be changed according to the principles of justice and fairness, so that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. would increase the share paid to the government of Iran that was only 8%. Britain flatly refused to meet Iran even half way.
In April 1951, Mossadegh became prime minister and his nationalisation plan was finally approved by the Majlis on 28 April 1951. Britain promptly threatened retaliation and within days British naval forces arrived near Abadan. In September 1951, Britain declared full economic sanctions against Iran, including an embargo against Iranian oil shipments as well as a freeze of Iranian assets in British banks. The British embargo was joined by all the major Anglo-American oil companies. Prospective buyers of nationalised Iranian oil were warned that they would face legal action on the grounds that a compensation agreement had not yet been signed with Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.
Iran oil revenues, plummeted from $400 million in 1950 to less than $2 million between July 1951 and the fall of Mossadegh in August 1953. Britain brought the case be brought before the World Court for arbitration, but Mossadegh, himself a lawyer, argued his case successfully, and on 22 July 1952 the Court denied Britain jurisdiction.

In May 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower, turned down Mossadegh’s request for economic aid, on advice of his secretary of state John Foster Dulles and CIA director Allen Dulles. On August 10, Allen Dulles met with the US ambassador to Tehran, Loy Henderson, and the Shah’s sister in Switzerland.
In 1953, after a five-year absence, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. arrived in Tehran to see “old friends”. He promised army generals he had earlier trained power after a successful coup against Mossadegh. Under code name Operation AJAX, the CIA with British SIS overthrew of Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
The young Reza Shah Pahlevi returned to power, and economic sanctions were lifted.

In April 1954, the Anglo-American companies, joined by France’s state-owned CFP, started negotiations with the government of Iran to secure a 25-year agreement for exploitation of oil on 100,000 square miles of Iranian territory.
British Petroleum (previously named Anglo-Iranian Oil) was given 40% of the old d’Arcy concession; Royal Dutch Shell got 14%; the major US oil companies divided 40% of the oil between them; and France’s CFP got 6%.

Enrico Mattei - ENI
One European company expressed interest in purchasing oil from Mossadegh’s nationalized oil supply. It was Italy’s Ente Natzionale Idrocarburi (ENI) of Enrico Mattei that was founded in February 1953.

In 1955, Mattei successful negotiated a share of the oil of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with Egypt’s new leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, which by 1961 had grown into a considerable 2.5 million tons per year of crude oil.
In August 1957, Mattei made a deal with the Shah - he offered an unprecedented 75% of total profits to the National Iranian Oil Company, with ENI (only) 25%. The new joint venture Société Irano-Italienne des Pétroles (SIRIP), got the 25-year exclusive right to explore and develop some 8,800 square miles of promising petroleum prospects in non-allocated regions in Iran.

By 1958, total proceeds from ENI’s Italian natural gas sales alone topped $75 million per year. Instead of spending precious Italian dollar reserves on imported oil and coal.
Between 1959 and 1961, gasoline prices in Italy dropped 25%, which significantly aided Italy’s post-war economic revival.

On 27 October 1962, under suspicious circumstances a private airplane crashed after taking off from Sicily en route to Milan killing Enrico Mattei, who was on his way to make deals with Iran, Egypt and the Soviet Union for oil supply.
He had already signed agreements with Morocco, Sudan, Tanzania, Ghana, India and Argentina. At the time of his death, Mattei had been preparing a trip to meet with the president John F. Kennedy, who was then pressing the US oil companies to reach an agreement with Mattei.

From Bretton Woods to 1968 - Gold fixed dollar
The US came out as the “world leader” from WW II.
A little known fact of the 1944 Bretton Woods deal was the creation of a gold exchange system. Under this system, each member country’s national currency was connected to the US dollar. The dollar rate was permanently fixed at $35 per ounce of gold.

From 1947 on, the Marshall plan was used by Western Europe to buy oil, supplied primarily by US oil companies, more than 10% of all Marshall aid. Between 1945 and 1948, they more than doubled the price of oil from $1.05 per barrel to $2.22 per barrel.
There were huge differences in the prices, at the time Greece paid $8.30 per ton for fuel oil, Britain paid only $3.95 per ton.

In late 1957, the US underwent the first deep post-war economic recession, which lasted into the mid 1960s.
While Europe was forced to pay excessively high interest rates to attract US dollars, as the dollar price was fixed, the US lowered its interest rates. Investors grabbed up “cheap” industrial companies in Western Europe, South America or Asia for higher profits abroad, as dollars flowed out of the US.
From 1957 to 1965, US annual net capital export into Western Europe mushroomed from less than $25 billion to more than $47 billion. Between 1962 and 1965, US corporations earned 12 to 14% on their investments in Western Europe.

JFK proposed a new bill to impose a tax of up to 15% on American capital invested abroad. When it finally passed in September 1964, they had made a seemingly innocent amendment, which exempted one country — British colony Canada! Montreal and Toronto thereby became the centres for an enormous loophole which ensured that the US dollar outflow continued, through London-controlled financial institutions.
Bank loans made by foreign branches of US banks to foreign residents were also exempt from the new US tax. So US banks quickly established branches in London and other major cities across the globe.

The City of London attracted the world’s financial flows with highest interest rates of any major industrial nation throughout the mid 1960s.
In 1961, the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Canada and Japan agreed to pool reserves in a special fund, the gold pool, to be administered in London by the Bank of England. The US Federal Reserve contributed only half the costs of continuing to maintain the world price of gold at the artificially low $35 per ounce price of 1934.
Financial speculators by the second half of 1967 were selling pounds and buying dollars to buy commercial gold in all possible markets from Frankfurt to Pretoria, sparking a steep rise in the market price of gold, in contrast to the $35 per ounce official US dollar price.
It appeared that even 80 tons of sold gold on the London market wasn’t enough to keep the fixed dollar price of Bretton Woods intact. On 18 November 1967, Britain announced a 14% devaluation of the pound from $2.80 to $2.40, the first devaluation since 1949. Once the pound had been devalued, speculative pressures immediately turned to the US dollar. International holders of dollars went to the gold discount window at the New York Federal Reserve and demanded their rightful gold in exchange.
The market price of gold rose even further. By the end 1967, Washington’s gold stock had declined another $1 billion to only $12 billion.

In January 1967, French president De Gaulle’s principal economic adviser, Jacques Rueff, came to London to propose raising the official price of gold. The US and Britain refused to hear such arguments, which would have meant a de facto devaluation of their currencies. The US and British press, led by the London Economist, attacked the French policy.
On 31 January 1967, a new law came into effect in France which allowed unlimited convertibility for the French franc.
Then France withdrew from the Group of Ten gold pool. France immediately became the target of riots, first by leftist students in Strasbourg, soon followed by students all over France. In coordination with the political unrest, US and British investment houses started a panic run on the French franc, cashing in francs for gold, draining the French gold reserves by almost 30% by the end of 1968.
Within a year, De Gaulle was out of office and France wasn’t a threat anymore.
In April 1968, a special meeting of the Group of Ten was convened in Stockholm where US officials unveiled the new “paper gold” substitute plan through the IMF, the so-called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

The oil inflation of 1973 – creating the petrodollar
In 1969, the US economy was again in a recession. In 1970, US interest rates were sharply lowered. As a consequence, speculative “hot money” sought higher short-term profits in Europe and elsewhere. As interest rates continued to drop, these outflows reached huge dimensions, totalling $20 billion.
In May 1971, the US recorded its first monthly trade deficit, triggering a virtually international panic sell-off of the US dollar.

On 15 August 1971, President Nixon formally suspended dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world fully onto a dollar standard with no backing. The US also formally devalued the dollar a mere 8% to $38 per fine ounce gold.
The real architects of the Nixon strategy were the influential City of London merchant banksters, including: Edmond de Rothschild, Sir Siegmund Warburg, and Jocelyn Hambro, who saw a “golden” opportunity in Nixon’s dissolution of the Bretton Woods gold standard.

In 1972, the massive capital outflows of dollars to Japan and Europe continued. In 12 February 1973, Nixon announced a second devaluation of the dollar, of another 10% to $42.22 per ounce (where it remains to this day).
Between February and March 1973, the value of the US dollar against the German Deutschmark dropped another 40%.

In May 1973, the Bilderberg Group met at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, the secluded island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family. At his meeting of 84 high ranking members of international crime, Walter Levy outlined a ‘scenario’ for a drastic increase in OPEC petroleum revenues. He projected an OPEC Middle East oil revenue rise.
See 2 excerpts from the confidential protocol of the 1973 meeting of the Bilderberg group in Sweden. There was discussion about the danger that “inadequate control of the financial resources of the oil producing countries could completely disorganize and undermine the world monetary system”.
The second excerpt speaks of “huge increases of imports from the Middle East. The cost of these imports would rise tremendously”.

The purpose was not to prevent the oil price shock, but plan it in a process that US Secretary of State Kissinger later called “recycling the petrodollar flows”. Since 1945, world oil had been priced in dollars. A sudden sharp increase in the price of oil, therefore meant an equal increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil.

Bilderberg policy used a global oil embargo, to create a 400% increase in world oil prices. On 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, igniting the Yom Kippur War.
The events surrounding the outbreak of the October War were secretly orchestrated by Washington and London, using the powerful secret diplomatic channels developed by Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. US intelligence reports, including intercepted communications from Arab officials confirming the build-up for war, were suppressed by Kissinger.
Washington didn’t permit Germany to remain neutral in the Middle East conflict, but hypocritical Britain clearly stated its neutrality, so avoided the Arab oil embargo.

On October 16, the Arab OPEC declared an embargo on all oil sales to the US and the Netherlands for its support for Israel and raised the oil price from $3.01 to $5.11 per barrel (+70%). Following a meeting in Teheran on 1 January 1974, a second price increase of more than 100% brought OPEC benchmark oil prices to $11.65. Henry Kissinger secretly put up to the Shah of Iran to arrange this.
President Nixon was kept busy with the “Watergate affair”, leaving Henry Kissinger as de facto president. When in 1974 the Nixon White House sent a senior official to the US Treasury in order to devise a strategy to force OPEC into lowering the oil price, he was bluntly turned away.
In August 1971, Nixon had established a secret accord with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) that was finalised in February 1975. Under the terms of the agreement, a sizeable part of the huge rise in Saudi oil revenue would be invested in financing the US government deficits.
In 1974, 70% of the additional OPEC oil revenue, $57 billion, at least 60% went directly to financial institutions in the US and Britain.

The most severe impact of the oil crisis in the US was felt in New York City. New York was forced to slash spending for roadways, bridges, hospitals and schools in order to service their bank debt, and to lay off tens of thousands of city workers.
Bankruptcies and unemployment across Europe rose to alarming levels. As Germany’s imported oil costs increased by 17 billion Deutschmarks in 1974. By June 1974 the oil crisis had resulted in the collapse of Germany’s Herstatt-Bank and a crisis in the Deutschmark as a result. It resulted in a million unemployed Germans.
In May 1974, Willy Brandt offered his resignation to Federal President Heinemann, who then appointed Helmut Schmidt as chancellor.

In 1973, India had a positive balance of trade. But in 1974, India had total foreign exchange reserves of $629 million which couldn’t pay for the annual oil import bill of 1,241 million.
In 1974, Sudan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and most countries in Africa and Latin America faced gaping deficits in their balance of payments.
In 1974, developing countries had a total trade deficit of $35 billion, 4 times as large as in 1973 (precisely in proportion to the oil price increase). In the early 1970s, the account deficit of all developing countries was (only) some $6 billion per year.

The major New York and London banks, and the Seven Sisters oil multinationals benefitted. In 1974, Exxon overtook General Motors as the largest US corporation in gross revenues. Her “sisters”, including Mobil, Texaco, Chevron and Gulf, were not far behind.
Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds, Midland Bank all enjoyed the windfall profits of the oil crisis.
In a strange twist, the American David Mulford became director and principal investment adviser of the SAMA, the largest OPEC oil producer.
Basically the post-war Bretton Woods gold exchange system was replaced by the highly unstable petroleum-based dollar exchange system, the “petrodollar standard”.

The year 1975 witnessed the first major decline in world trade since the end of the war in 1945, a drop of 6%.
While industrial countries had experienced a slow recovery from the initial oil shock, the developing economies deteriorated even further in 1975. In 1976, the account deficit of all developing countries rose to $42 billion. Private US and European banks were glad to lend to these countries.
Foreign debts of the developing countries expanded some five-fold, from $130 billion in 1973, before the first oil shock, to some $550 billion by 1981, and to over $612 billion by 1982, according to the IMF.

In August 1976, the 85 non-aligned “developing” states countries tried after the Colombo meeting to fight for “A fair and just economic development”. The UN was chosen as the arena where the “developing” countries explained their demands.
Share prices for US banks began to fall, especially those most involved in Eurodollar lending to the developing countries: Citicorp, Morgan Guaranty, Bankers Trust and Chase Manhattan. The Federal Reserve Bank was forced to intervene to support the falling dollar.
One by one, the advocates of Third World development were removed from the seats of domestic power. In February 1977, PM Indira Gandhi of India was forced into elections and was ousted by March. Sri Lanka paralyzed by a wave of strikes in early January 1977. By May 1977, Bandaranaike’s ruling Freedom Party was gone from power. In 1977, Bhutto was overthrown in a military coup led by General Zia ul-Haq. Before his death by hanging, Bhutto accused US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of being behind his overthrow. On 14 February 1978, in Guyana, Frederick Willswas forced to resign.

Ayatollah Khomeini – Thatcher economics, the IMF in the 1980s
In 1975, the CFR, under the direction of New York attorney Cyrus Vance, drafted a series of policy blueprints for the 1980s. The CFR called “A degree of “controlled disintegration” in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the 1980’s”.

In 1978, the Shah’s government of Iran and British Petroleum were “negotiating” on the renewal of the 25-year oil extraction agreement. In October 1978, the talks had collapsed over the British “offer” that demanded exclusive rights to Iran’s future oil output.
In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, a member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead “case officers” in the new CIA-led coup against the Shah that they had placed into power in 1953. US security advisers to the Shah’s Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, to maximize antipathy against the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration began protesting abuses of “human rights” under the Shah.
The BBC’s Persian-language broadcasts, drummed up hysteria against the regime in exaggerated reporting of incidents of protest against the Shah and gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran.
The Shah fled in January 1979, and by February Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his theocratic state.

Iran’s oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in January 1979 also cut some 2 million barrels per day.
Unusually low reserves of oil held by the “Seven Sisters” oil multinationals contributed to the oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. The ensuing energy crisis in the US was a major factor in bringing about Carter’s defeat in the presidential election a year later.
Despite the fact that an oil price of $40 per barrel represented a dramatic increase in dollar terms, the media hysteria over the “incompetent” Carter administration, led to a further weakening of the dollar.
Since early 1978, the dollar had already dropped more than 15% against the German mark and other major currencies. In September 1978, the dollar fell in a near panic collapse when it was reported that Saudi’s central bank SAMA had begun liquidating billions of dollars of US treasury bonds.
The oil price shocks in 1973 and 1979, which had raised the price of the world’s basic energy by 1,300% in 6 years, had understandably caused inflation.

British PM Margaret Thatcher, insisted that the 18% inflation in Britain had been caused by government deficit spending, carefully ignoring the 140% increase in the price of oil since the fall of Iran’s Shah. In June 1979, a month Thatcher had become PM, the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, began raising base rates for the banking system a staggering five percentage points, from 12% to 17%in only 12 weeks. The Bank of England simultaneously began to cut the money supply, to ensure that interest rates remained high.
Director of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker followed Britain’s example to “fix” this inflation by cutting credit to banks, consumers and the economy. US interest rates on the Eurodollar market soared from 10% to 16% and 20% in a matter of weeks. Government spending was savagely cut in order to reduce “monetary inflation”.
In March 1980, President Carter had signed into law the “Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act” that empowered Volcker’s Federal Reserve to impose reserve requirements on banks, ensuring that his credit choke succeeded.

Businesses went bankrupt, families were unable to buy new homes, long-term investment in power plants, subways, railroads and other infrastructure came to a grinding a halt. Unemployment in Britain doubled, from 1.5 million to 3 million in Thatcher’s first 18 months as Prime Minister.
Inflation was indeed being “squeezed” as the world economy was plunged into the deepest depression since the 1930s – this was labelled the “Thatcher revolution”. And the dollar began an extraordinary 5-year ascent.
The international financial interests of the City of London and the powerful oil companies, chiefly Shell and British Petroleum, were the intended beneficiaries. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell exploited the astronomical price of $36 or more per barrel for their North Sea oil.
Also exchange controls on the big City banks were removed, so that instead of capital being invested in rebuilding Britain’s rotten industry base, funds flowed out to real estate in Hong Kong or lucrative loans to Latin America
The radical monetarism of Thatcher and Volcker spread like a cancer. With interest rates of 17-20% any “normal” investment was simply not profitable.

Six months after Thatcher took office, Ronald Reagan was elected president of the US, with Vice President George H.W. Bush in control.
Reagan had been tutored while governor of California by the guru of monetarism, Milton Friedman. Reagan kept Milton Friedman as an unofficial adviser on economic policy. His administration was filled with disciples of Friedman’s radical monetarism, following the same radical measures earlier imposed by Friedman to destroy the economy of Chile under Pinochet’s military dictatorship.

As the average cost of their petroleum imports, rose some 140% in US dollars, developing countries this time around were faced with the situation that the dollar itself was also rising rapidly, because of both the high US interest rates and the higher oil price.
All Eurodollar loans to these countries were fixed at a specified premium over and above the given London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR). This LIBOR rate was a “floating” rate, which rose from an average of 7% in early 1978 to almost 20% in early 1980.
The creditor banks, following a closed-door meeting in England’s Ditchley Park that fall, created a creditors’ cartel of leading banks, headed by the New York and London banks, later called the Institute for International Finance or the Ditchley Group. The private banks “socialised” their lending risks to the taxpaying public, but kept the profits for themselves.
This was an almost exact copy of what the New York bankers did after 1919 against Germany and the rest of Europe under the Dawes Plan.

Out of $270 billion loaned by Latin America between 1976 and 1981, only 8.4% actually arrived in the countries. In 1979, a net sum of $40 billion flowed from the “rich” North to the “poor” South. In 1983, this flow had reversed with $6 billion from the “developing” countries to the industrialised countries, since then the amount has risen steadily, to approximately $30 billion a year.
In August 1982, large Third World debtor nations refused to pay, but the IMF simply pressured them to sign “debt work-outs” with the leading private banks, often led by Citicorp or Chase Manhattan of New York. The IMF “medicine” was invariably the same: the victim debtor country was told to slash domestic imports to the bone, cut the national budget, quit state subsidies for food and other necessities, and devalue the national currency in order to make its exports “attractive”.
Between 1980 and 1986, a group of 109 debtor countries, paid to creditors in interest on foreign debts alone $326 billion; repayment of principal on the same debts totalled another $332 billion. They were paying $658 billion on what originally had been a debt of $430 billion and on top of that these 109 countries still owed the creditors $882 billion in 1986!
Total foreign debt of the developing countries, rose from just over $839 billion in 1982 to almost $1,300 billion by 1987. Virtually all this increase was due to the added burden of “refinancing” the unpayable old debt.

During the 1980s, the “developing“ nations transferred a total of $400 billion into the US alone. Capital flight from Third World countries into the “safe haven” of the US and other industrialised countries amounted to at least another $123 billion in the decade up to 1985. Large banks, like Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty and Bank of America, were bringing in flight capital assets of some $100–120 billion. The annual return for the New York and London banks on their Latin American flight capital business, was 70% on average. The very same “developing” countries were forced into brutal domestic austerity to “stabilise” the currency.
These profits allowed the Reagan administration to finance the largest “peacetime” deficits in world history, while falsely claiming “the world’s longest peacetime recovery”. As exports to Latin America came to a grinding halt, there was a devastating loss of US jobs and exports.

President Ronald Reagan in August 1981 signed the largest tax reduction bill in post-war history. In the summer 1982, Paul Volcker decreased interest rate levels. This was followed by a speculative bonanza in real estate, stocks, oil wells in Texas or Colorado. As the Federal Reserve’s interest rates went lower, the fever grew hotter. “Cheap” debt was the new fashion. Within 5 years, the US transformed from the world’s largest creditor to becoming a debtor nation, for the first time since 1914.
While this turned young stock brokers into multimillionaires, the real living standard for “normal” Americans steadily decreased, while that of a minority rose as never before. Families went into record levels of debt for buying houses, cars, video recorders. Government went into debt to finance the huge loss of tax revenue and the expanded Reagan defence build-up.
By 1983, annual government deficits began to climb to an unheard-of level of $200 billion. The national debt expanded, along with the deficits, and paying Wall Street bond dealers and their clients record sums in interest income. Interest payments on the total debt by the U.S. government almost tripled in 6 years, from $52 billion in 1980, to more than $142 billion by 1986 (equal to one-fifth of all government revenue).
Money kept flowing in from Germany, from Britain, from Holland, from Japan, to take advantage of the high dollar and the speculative gains in real estate and stocks on the US markets.

Billions of dollars flowed out of the London-based Eurodollar banks to the accounts of developing country borrowers without a “lender of last resort” but the banks didn’t take any risk as the IMF enforced payment of the usurious debts through the most draconian austerity in history. The IMF was firmly controlled by the Anglo-American voting power.

Nationally controlled oil resources could have been the means for modernising Mexico.
In February 1982, the IMF dictated a series of Mexican peso devaluations to “spur exports”. By the first 30% devaluation, the private Mexican industry, which had borrowed dollars to finance investment, led by the once-powerful Alfa Group of Monterrey, was made bankrupt overnight.
In early 1982, the peso stood at 12 pesos for a dollar. By 1986, 862 Mexican pesos were needed to buy 1 dollar, and by 1989 the sum had climbed to 2,300 pesos. But Mexico’s total foreign debt, grew from some $82 billion to just under $100 billion by the end of 1985.
British and US multinationals set up child-labour sweatshops along the Mexican border with the US. These “maquiladores” employed Mexican children aged 14 or 15 for wages of 50 cents an hour, to produce goods for General Motors or Ford Motor Company or various US electrical companies. Of course the IMF agreed with this child labour!

The same process was repeated in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, most of black Africa, including Zambia, Zaire and Egypt, and large parts of Asia.
Until the 1980s, black Africa remained 90% dependent on raw materials export for financing its development. In the early 1980s, the world dollar price of these raw materials came tumbling down. By 1987, raw materials prices had fallen to the lowest levels since the Second World War, about the level of 1932 (when there was also a deep world economic depression).
In 1982, these African countries owed creditor banks in the US, Europe and Japan some $73 billion. By the end of the 1980s, through debt “rescheduling” and various IMF interventions, this had more than doubled, to $160 billion. This was about the sum these countries would have earned at a stable export price level.

The incredible high inflation rates during the early part of the 1980s, typically 12–17%, dictated the conditions of investment returns. A fast and huge gain was needed.
In 1985, the US economic situation threatened the future presidential ambitions of Vice President George H.W. Bush. This was reason for a “rescue” mission.
This time Saudi Arabia was used to run a “reverse oil shock” and flood the world oil market with “cheap” oil. The price of OPEC oil dropped from an average of nearly $26 to below $10 per barrel in only a couple of months in the spring of 1986. Wall Street economists proclaimed the final “victory”, while George Bush Sr. made a quiet trip to Riyadh in March 1986 to tell King Fahd that the oil price had gone down enough. Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani was fired for a scapegoat and oil prices stabilized at the “low” level of around $14–16 per barrel.

Speculation in real estate in the US continued at a record pace, while the stock market began a renewed climb to record highs. This 1986 oil-price collapse unleashed what was comparable to the 1927–29 phase in the US speculative bubble. Interest rates dropped even more dramatically, as money flowed in to make a “killing” on the New York stock markets.
A new financial perversion became fashionable on Wall Street, the ”leveraged buyout”. Boone Pickens with borrowed money - “junk bonds” - bought controlling stock in companies, like Union Oil of California, or Gulf Oil, that were many times more worth than he had. If he succeeded in taking over a huge company with “borrowed money”, his debt could be repaid, while making a handsome profit. If the company became bankrupt, his bonds were just “junk” paper.
During the last half of the 1980s, such actions consumed Wall Street and pushed the Dow upwards, driving corporations into the highest levels of debt since the 1930s depression. But this debt was not undertaken to invest in modern technology or new plant and equipment.

After President Reagan signed the new Garn–St. Germain Act into law, he enthusiastically told an audience of invited S&L bankers, “I think we’ve hit the jackpot”. The new law opened the doors of the S&Ls to financial abuses and speculative risks as never before. It also made S&L banks an ideal vehicle for “organised crime” to launder billions of dollars from the booming narcotics business.
Few noticed that it was the former firm of Reagan’s Treasury secretary Donald Regan, Merrill Lynch, whose Lugano office was implicated in laundering billions of dollars of heroin profits in the so-called “pizza connection”.
Life insurance companies, began to speculate in real estate during the 1980s. By 1989, insurance companies were holding an estimated $260 billion of real estate on their books, in 1980 this had been $100 billion. Then in late 1980, real estate collapsed, forcing failures of insurance companies for the first time in post-war history.

On 19 October 1987, the bubble burst. On that day the Dow Jones Index collapsed more than in any single day in history, by 508 points. Nakasone pressed the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance to assist. Japanese interest rates fell lower, and lower, making US stocks, bonds and real estate appear “cheap” by comparison. Billions of dollars flowed out of Tokyo into the United States. During 1988, the dollar remained strong and Bush was able to secure his election as president. The plan of the new Bush administration was to direct pressures onto US allies for “burden sharing” of the huge US debt.
The Thornburgh Doctrine had stipulated that the FBI and Justice Department had authority to act on foreign territory. President Bush quickly showed himself to be a “tough guy”, by invading the tiny Panama, in his first year as President, December 1989.

From 1979, when Paul Volcker had begun his monetary shock, to 1988 the government recorded Americans below the poverty level went from 24 million to 32 million Americans (an increase of more than 30%). Costs of American health care, rose to the highest levels ever, and as a share of GNP, to double that of the UK.
In the 1980s, the vital public infrastructure of the US collapsed: highways cracked; bridges became structurally unsound and even collapsed; in areas like Pittsburgh, water systems became contaminated; hospitals in major cities fell into disrepair; housing stock for the less wealthy decayed dramatically.
Total private and public debt of the US in the 1980s went from $3,873 billion to $10 trillion by the end of the decade.
Thatcher’s eleven-year as PM of Britain was equally disastrous. Real estate speculation and the financial services of the City of London increased enormously, while Thatcher’s economic policy had severely restricted industrial investment, and modernisation of the nation’s deteriorating public infrastructure.

William Engdahl – A Century of War; Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (first published in 1992, but updated since): http://www.takeoverworld.info/pdf/En...f_War_book.pdf

Understandably there are important events missing from the book (with “only” 270 pages). I’ve also deleted lots of information, and even with these omissions this post is “too” long...

Following is a recent interview with William Engdahl (44:33): https://soundcloud.com/21wire/featur...ancial-warfare
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 12-11-2018 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Corrections
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.