Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The Morality and Legality of Debt Jubilee, Part II

debt_jubilee(2)   By Jeff Nielson and originally published at sprottmoney.com
Part I of this series demonstrated how/why all of our government debts incurred in recent decades are the result of obvious and egregious fraud. These debts currently cripple our economies (and societies) with roughly 25% of every revenue dollar taken in by our corrupt governments being utterly wasted, making interest payments to financial parasites – criminal parasites.

This means that not only is it morally defensible (and imperative) that we wipe away these recent, fraudulent debts, it can be justified legally, in clear and unequivocal terms. But the question which remained from the opening installment of this series was with respect to the morality/legality of our historical debts. Could we, should we also erase the debts incurred by past generations, after we wipe away all of the recent years of debt-via-fraud?
Part I provided a clue/argument on how we should adjudicate the debts from our past, in the form of a quote from the late Charles Lindbergh Sr., former Republican Congressman, and a champion of the people in his own era, nearly a century ago:
 Our future and the future of our children have been doubly mortgaged by the wonderful profiteering schemes of the last eight years [1915 – 22], mortgaged on a larger scale than ever before. It is simply a larger installment of the great profiteering game, growing in its burden all the time andforcing us into greater and greater debt, debt that can never be paid under the present system of finance; but, on the contrary, will increase until by its own excesses it breaks down by forcing its own repudiation [i.e. Debt Jubilee]. It cannot much longer stand the strain imposed by its own plan.  [emphasis mine]
There are two themes which dominate this quote. First of all; the debts incurred in Lindbergh’s era – the original debts of our nations – were the product of a “game” (or a scam, or a fraud?). The banking cabal of Lindbergh’s era, the (direct) ancestors of today’s banking oligarchs employed coercion: “forcing” us into debt, and (via the arithmetic of compound interest) ultimately “forcing” us to repudiate that debt.
Clearly the original debts piled atop our nations were also the result of malice, coercion, and fraud. The malice and coercion are explicitly implied by the quote; the fraud is implicitly implied. Were the banksters of Lindbergh’s era – who also professed to be “the financial advisors” of our governments – telling our governments that the economic path they were leading us down could only end in disaster and bankruptcy? Of course not.

They professed to have a superior understanding of “finance”, and (like all Con Artists) they claimed the subtleties of this “finance” were too complex to grasp – for anyone lacking their “expertise”. Lindbergh understood in his own era, as it is understood here, that the majority of “finance” is nothing more than the application of arithmetic.

Any entity which steadily and relentlessly incurs debt will go bankrupt. There is no ‘magical’ means of manipulating one’s financial management in a manner which contradicts the most-basic principles of arithmetic. Were the political leaders of Lindbergh’s era simply too stupid to grasp the arithmetic of compound interest: that piling debt on top of debt must lead to bankruptcy (and Debt Jubilee)?

No. Just as with the political traitors of our own era; the means of “force” employed by the One Bank of Lindbergh’s era was the brute-force of corruption. The bankers bought our political leaders, and once in their service, those “leaders” (i.e. employees) feigned an incapacity to understand the simple mechanics of compound interest, and the inevitable result of serial debt. Quoting Lindbergh, again:

it has become a farce. Voters must realize that the old party leaders shout the ideals the people had in the original formation of the parties. Party leaders do that for propaganda purposes only.They proclaim good, and do evil.

The (U.S.) Two-Party Dictatorship described in these (modern) commentaries was already a fact of life one hundred years ago. Lest any reader make the mistake of interpreting any ambiguity in the preceding quote; Lindbergh is unequivocal in words which preceded that:

There is no material difference now in the old political parties [Republican and Democrat], except which shall control patronage [and thus collect the biggest bribes].

Clearly the debts incurred by the U.S. government of Lindbergh’s era, the U.S. debts incurred in our own era, and all the decades in between were a deliberate fraud perpetrated by the (supposed) government of the people, against the people. The combination of both fraud and malicious intent makes all of this debt blatantly illegal, and absolutely unenforceable.

However, what must be understood is that there is a totally separate basis for concluding that these debts were incurred as the product of fraud (in the strict, legal sense), and therefore legally unenforceable on this basis, as well. Thus for any who insist on blinding themselves to the rampant corruption of our traitor-leaders, there is still a binding, legal basis for repudiating these debts – all of them.
This other, fatal illegality in the origins of our debts, past, present, and future is founded in the legal doctrine of “fraudulent misrepresentation”. Under ordinary circumstances; if someone tricks us, and we suffer financial harm from that treachery, we have no legal recourse. We are (legally) victims of our own stupidity.
There is, however, a very large, distinct, and legally conclusive exception to this general rule. This relates to the legal concept known as “fiduciary duty”. Readers need not be intimidated by this jargon, as it represents a very simple principle. If someone proclaims themselves to be an expert, and also proclaims to be giving someone/some entity advice which is in their own best interests; this self-proclaimed “expert” creates a fiduciary duty for himself.
The expert (or “fiduciary”) has a legal duty of honesty. It is never allowable (or legal) for someone to gain the confidence of any person/entity by portraying one’s self as an expert, and then exploit that trust (and dependence) for their own financial advantage. Have the bankers of these Big Banks (the tentacles of the One Bank) portrayed themselves as “experts” when they advised our governments, and thus became fiduciaries? Obviously, yes.

The banksters have irrevocably portrayed themselves as fiduciaries (binding themselves by this legal duty of honesty) in both explicit and implicit terms. For proof of this; we need merely look around at the current generation of these financial experts.
According to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of one of “the Evil Twins” of banking (Goldman Sachs); he considers himself and his banking brethren to not merely be “experts”, but High Priests of the world of finance:

I’m doing ‘God’s Work.’ Meet Mr. Goldman Sachs.

Note the deliberate capitalization of the word “work”. This devious snake not only wraps himself in divinity (as he lies, cheats, and steals every day of his life); he claims that the “Work” he does is, itself, Divine – and thus beyond the comprehension of lesser mortals (like our governments).

For any banker apologists reading this, who don’t consider Blankfein’s explicit boast of being a High Priest as proof of the fiduciary status of these banksters; the implicit evidence is even more overwhelming. These High Priests award themselves astronomical salaries, orders of magnitude greater than the Average Person, and an order of magnitude greater than the politicians they advise – even if we include all their political bribes.
There are only three possible conclusions which can be deduced from the obscene levels of compensation which these banksters award themselves each year, concerning their own state of mind:
a)  They consider themselves experts.
b)  They consider themselves thieves.
c)   (A) and (B).
Even if these career criminals seek to profess that there was nothing strictly illegal concerning how they induced our governments into burying themselves (and us) in debt, even mere dishonesty is enough, by itself, to taint these debts (past, present, and future) and render them legally null-and-void.

here is one, final element necessary to conclusively prove “fraudulent misrepresentation”, and thus conclusively prove that all our governments’ debts are illegal and unenforceable. We must show that our governments relied upon these swindlers – as experts/fiduciaries.
Here, once again, the evidence is overwhelming. Going back to Lindbergh’s own era (and the “J.P. Morgans”, and other Snakes of that time); these High Priests have always enjoyed privileged status as “financial insiders”. They have always been privy to confidential information from our governments, concerning our markets, our economies, and the present and future policies they intended.

The banksters have used this confidential information to their (enormous) financial advantage, year after year, decade after decade, for more than a century. It’s known as “insider trading”, and it’s yet another crime which has been serially perpetrated by the High Priests. Putting aside all that additional crime; with the privilege of being (permanent) financial/economic “insiders” comes (legal) responsibility.

The fact that our governments have shared (financial/economic) secrets with the High Priests – for generations – is conclusive legal proof of the “reliance” we seek to demonstrate. One only shares their most important Secrets with their most trusted Advisors.
For one hundred years; these financial High Priests have had a binding, legal duty to advise our governments honestly – and to act in their/our best interests. For one hundred years; the High Priests have shamelessly betrayed us, to bring us to where we are today: buried in debt, and on the brink of bankruptcy.

These High Priests (of the same Big Banks) have not only been the “trusted advisors” of the U.S. government over the past century. They have been the trusted advisors of (nearly) every nation in the Western world over those hundred years. Our national debts, debts incurred at the explicit urgings of the High Priests are not merely illegal and unenforceable. They are a joke – a very, very bad joke.
This still leaves one, very large question unanswered as we head (rapidly and inevitably) toward Debt Jubilee. What about our own, individual debts? The majority of our populations are also seriously (if not terminally) indebted, and indebted to the same financial parasite: the One Bank.

Should all of our personal debts stand, when the fraudulent/illegal debts of our governments are inevitably (and legally) wiped clean? That final issue will be the subject of the third, and concluding installment of this series.