0 votes

The Daily Economist: "Central Banks: And then there were three who remained free

I know this isn't new, but it ties in nicely with the recent BRICS news.

http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2011/11/central-banks-and-t...

There was one primary reason the Obama administration chose to send money and support to the Libyan conflict earlier this year, and it had little to do with overthrowing a brutal dicator. Certain clues in the rebel camp screamed out the primary purpose for Europe and the US to send troops, aircraft, drones, and even advisors to the conflict that took place over the summer.

Libya was one of only five nations remaining who did not have a privately owned central bank. Now there are only three.

North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. And guess who immediately became target number one after Gadhafi was killed? Iran.

As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran
Then along came the convenient terror of 9-11 and soon Iraq and Afghanistan had been added to the list, leaving only five countries without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family: ...

Very illuminating list and story line. One question though... How does Cuba going to a freer market system increase their chance of getting swallowed by the monster? If anything, decentralization of power should offer more of a defense against such a thing. Seems like a weak attempt at "bait and switch"... You decide.

Finish reading at:
http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2011/11/central-banks-and-t...



Trending on the Web