Bank CEOs are the New Drug Lords

smartknowledgeu's picture

banklordsBank CEOs are the New Drug Lords. Here is a list of some of the banks managed by Bank CEOs, aka the new Drug Lords, that were fined billions of dollars for fixing LIBOR rates and stealing money from clients: Lloyds Bank, RP Martin, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Société Générale, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Barclays, United Bank of Switzerland and Rabobank. Here is a list of some of the banks in which the Bank Lords fixed FX rates and are currently negotiating fine amounts with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Citigroup, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, JP Morgan and United Bank of Switzerland. HSBC had to pay nearly $2B in fines after its Bank CEO was allegedly caught overseeing the laundering of $7B in drug money for the notoriously violent and ruthless Sinaloa drug cartel among other Mexican drug cartels and committing a wide array of other crimes like laundering $290MM from Russian mobsters that told HSBC bankers that their vast profits came from a “used car business”. I say "allegedly caught", because every time this happens, the bank CEO, in this case, HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver, inevitably denies ever knowing that the cartel he was overseeing was laundering dirty blood money. The Bank Lords issue these ridiculous denials despite the fact that every independent investigator not on a Bank's payroll that investigates banks' money laundering schemes arrive at the same conclusion as Jose Luis Marmolejo, the former head of the Mexican attorney general’s financial crimes unit: "[The money laundering] went on too long and [the bank CEOS] made too much money not to have known.” And what about HSBC's $2B assessed fine for laundering this blood money? In response to meaningless fines like this that never change banker behavior, Martin Woods, former senior anti-money laundering officer at Wachovia bank, implored, "What does the settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing – it doesn't make the job of law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where's the risk? There is none." That is why HSBC is not the only cartel that houses bankers who have been caught laundering blood money in recent years. Wachovia Bank, Citigroup, Banco Santander, and Bank of America bankers have all been caught leading their banks in participation of this dirty deed as well. According to Paul Campo, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s financial crimes unit, drug traffickers used Bank of America to finance their drug smuggling operations for 10 tons of cocaine and laundered drug money through Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, and Brownsville, TX from 2002 to 2009.

 

So how do Bank Lords get away with their dirty deeds scot-free? This month, explosive evidence contained in 47.5 hours of secret recordings from Goldman Sachs whistleblower and former New York Federal Reserve employee Carmen Segarra provides the answers we already knew. Bank Lords have been buying off judges and regulators after already buying off cops (JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon “Gifts” Largest Donation Ever to NYPD of $4.6MM). When Fed regulators asked Segarra to alter minutes of meetings in which Goldman Sachs bankers' immoral behavior was discussed in order to cover up the truth and to lie about the content of these meetings, Segarra decided to secretly record her meetings with her bosses. Below are some of the revelations contained in the transcripts of those secret recordings:

 

In one meeting Segarra attended, a Goldman employee expressed the view that "once clients are wealthy enough, certain consumer laws don't apply to them."

After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and expressed how surprised she was by that statement -- to which the regulator replied, "You didn't hear that."

When Segarra discovered multiple conflicts of interest in Goldman Sachs deals between Goldman Sachs bankers and their clients that led to deals being struck that would be the equivalent of insider trading in the stock market and consequently discovered Goldman Sachs had no “conflict of interest” policy, her boss harassed her and demanded of Segarra, "Why do you have to say there's no policy?"


When Segarra complained to her legal and compliance manager, Jonathon Kim, of how her discoveries were being handled and told Kim that “even when I explain to [my superiors at the New York Federal Reserve] what my evidence is, they won’t even listen”, Kim reacted in an equally morally bankrupt manner as Segarra’s superiors, advising Segarra “to be patient” and to “bite her tongue.”

 

So now that we know that Bank Lords buy out morally-challenged regulators, cops and judges in return for carte-blanche to continue committing crimes, rig markets to collect undeserved and unearned kickbacks, and launder drug cartel money from violent cartels that murder 10,000 people a year (the Sinaloa drug cartel), is there really even a line in the sand that separates Bank Lords and Drug Lords, or have Bank Lords become the new Drug Lords?

 

bank lords are the new drug lords

Let’s take a closer look into the increasingly similar worlds of drug cartel and bank cartels. The last market bubble will not be the Chinese or Thai real estate bubble, the US stock market, the US student loan bubble or the Social Media bubble. If we take a look at the political cartoon to the left, drawn more than a century ago in 1907, we find that Bank CEOs have been engaging in the same nefarious deeds ever since they were able to put the global banking system on the fractional reserve banking platform. Banker immorality, having multiplied and grown for over a century, will be the last bubble to pop. To illustrate what I am talking about, let me pose this singular question: “Is it possible to prove that a notoriously violent Drug Lord provided more positive value to society during his reign of terror than criminal Bank Lords like Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein & Stuart Gulliver are providing during theirs?” If we can make a strong case for a Drug Lord providing more social value and benefits than the largest Bank CEOs in the world, all else being equal, then this is the point when we know our future is dire, especially if we refuse to collectively revolt right now against the very banking system that enslaves us.

At first you may think that my aforementioned question is a ludicrous question. After all, how can the positive social benefits provided by a violent, murderous Drug Lord possibly exceed the social benefits, as non-existent as they may be, provided by the heads of the largest bank crime syndicates? Before we dismiss this question, let's seriously explore it and see what conclusions we may draw from this exercise.

 

Every large drug cartel in the world, whether it was Pablo Escobar’s infamous Colombian Medellín cartel in the 1980s or El Chapo Guzman’s notorious Mexican Sinaloa cartel of today, has required the logistical support of a sophisticated banking division not just to survive, but to truly thrive. In fact, without the support of a large global Bank CEO, the largest drug cartels in the world would quickly crash and burn and the Drug Lords would disappear. As we explain in the next section, it is simple to conclude that without the consent and help of global Bank CEOs, the world’s largest drug cartels would not be viable. In the 1980s through the early 1990s, Pablo Escobar chose the Italian Banco Ambrosiano and allegedly the Vatican Bank as well to launder billions of his dirty money, while in more contemporary times, El Chapo Guzman handpicked HSBC Bank USA as his preferred bank to launder his billions.

 

Murder and Crime: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

During his reign of terror, Pablo Escobar ordered the murder of an estimated 4,000 people, including hundreds of police officers, judges, lawyers, journalists and anyone that dared to oppose his violent drug cartel. Escobar even allegedly tortured his own associates that proved to be disloyal to him. However, of the thousands of murders committed by Pablo’s cartel, it was likely that he did not commit the murders himself. Drug Lords are notoriously careful about committing homicidal acts that would provide the evidence prosecuting attorneys need to put them behind bars for a very long time. It is more than likely that a man like Pablo Escobar paid others to carry out his murders for him. However, Banco Ambrosiano and Vatican Bank executives, if they did indeed knowingly launder Pablo’s billions as has been alleged, share a significant measure of complicity in Pablo’s murders. Without having a bank to launder his money, there would have been no reason for Escobar to continue operating his cocaine cartel and murdering the people that opposed him. Likewise, one can successfully argue that HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver and top HSBC bankers enabled many more murders than even Escobar. The Mexican drug cartels, whose money HSBC laundered, have murdered an estimated 80,000 people since 2006 (with 10,000 murders commited by the Sinaloa drug cartel alone between 2008 and 2012), far more murders than Escobar’s empire ever carried out. Even though Banco Ambrosiano and HSBC Bank CEOs were not directly giving the orders to murder people, you must connect the dots between the Bank CEOs that launder drug cartel money and the crimes committed by these drug cartels because the dots can NOT be separated. Both actions are inextricably linked to one another, and without the services of money laundering willingly provided by the bank CEOs, the 80,000 murders committed by the Mexican drug cartel criminals would not occur.

 

Former anti-money laundering officer Martin Woods wholly supports the above argument: "Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican people? It's simple: if you don't see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico (actually, the Mexican drug cartels are believed to have murdered 80,000 since 2006 as we've stated above), you're missing the point." After presenting evidence to Wachovia bank executives of their employees willingly laundering drug traffickers' blood money, to which Wachovia bank executives responded by telling him to shut up and by trying to get him fired, Woods understandably quit his position with Wachovia in disgust, stating, "It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy.”


Here is a list of complaints Woods filed with the UK House of Commons, including accusations that the very regulatory agency that was supposed to aid his investigations to uncover truth, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA), worked more against him than with him to clean up the crimes of the banking industry.

 

The only redeeming excuse that HSBC, Citigroup, Wachovia, and other Bank CEOs may have (that have collectively laundered billions upon billions of drug cartel blood money) is a proven ignorance of these activities occurring within their banking operations. However, as I previously stated, this excuse as a legitimate one is extremely unlikely. An abundance of journalists and law enforcement agencies that have studied internal bank documents to understand the complexity of drug laundering operations of big global banks always reach the same conclusion. US Customs Agent Robert Mazur and Mexican journalist Anabel Hernández, after years of meticulous research, both concluded that bankers at the highest levels of the drug-laundering bank - the CEOs, COOs, and CFOs - all know about these operations beyond any reasonable doubt and that ignorance of these immoral and illegal activities is nearly impossible. When I was as a Private Banker for a large global banking firm many years ago, the top policy that was always stressed for all accounts, but in particular, any account that involved a steady stream of large and frequent cash deposits, was KYC, or Know Your Client. It was absolutely incumbent upon the banker to visit the operations, and "kick the tires" per se, of any account that generated large cash deposits to confirm the legitimacy of the cash flow. If the source of these large cash deposits could not be determined, then all such accounts were to be immediately terminated. Thus when men like HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver professes complete ignorance of laundering billions of cash for drug cartels, I have to concur with Mazur and Hernández's assessment, as the top experts in money laundering schemes, that it would have been nearly impossible for Gulliver not to know.


In conclusion, I would place Escobar in the category of "violence inflicted upon society", just slightly above global Bank CEOs because the drug lords are the ones giving the direct orders to murder tens of thousands while Bank CEOs are only enabling these murders through their drug laundering operations. However, banks must receive a black mark for willingly participating in extremely profitable, criminal drug laundering operations that leave a trail of tears and misery, as people like Martin Woods, Robert Mazur and Anabel Hernánde have all made it crystal clear through their work that it is near impossible for a Bank CEO not to willingly approve these types of extremely profitable operations that create tens of thousands of homicides. Furthermore, the comparison between Bank Lords and Drug Lords is made even more apropos when we examine some of the "turf wars" Bank Lords engage in when committing their crimes. Drugs never leave a drug-infested neighborhood when a corner dealer or even a regional distributor is murdered. Rather, a competing Drug Lord will fill the void left by a competitor's demise and opportunistically expand his criminal empire by providing product distribution in regions where a void may develop. Likewise, when Deutsche Bank was recently forced to vacate one of the 12 seats in the gold & silver rigging game in London, Citigroup swooped in and took control over Deutsche Bank's vacated turf.

 

Quality of Life/Social Contributions: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

Cocaine cartel Drug Lord Pablo Escobar, at the height of his cartel, was believed to have supplied an astounding 75% of the entire world’s cocaine, as strong a monopoly on cocaine as is the US military-protected Afghan poppy fields that recently supplied between 95% to 98% of all heroin distribution today. Pablo’s cocaine empire was so far reaching that Roberto Escobar, one of Pablo’s closest brothers, estimated Pablo’s annual profits to be in the range of $20 billion a year. According to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in 1982, cocaine usage peaked in the United States at about 10.5 million users. Historically, the US has accounted for roughly 40% of all global cocaine users. Using these figures, we can roughly estimate total global recreational cocaine use at 26.25 million users at the height of cocaine’s popularity in the early 1980s. Now let’s factor in the worst possible case scenario for every single one of these 26.25 million cocaine users. Let’s assume, in the worst possible case scenario, that not a single one of them was a functional recreational cocaine user and that every single one of these global cocaine users caused stress and trouble for at least 10 other family members and friends, so that 26.25 million X 10, or 262 million people were adversely affected in some social manner by cocaine users. Since Escobar supplied 75% of all cocaine users at the peak of his operations, in a worst possible case scenario with ludicrous worst possible case assumptions, one would conclude that Escobar had a negative social impact on 75% of 262 million, or 196 million people, in this world. Now you may think to yourself, “Wow, that is a lot of people for one cartel to negatively affect” and you would be correct.

 

But yet, if we compare the negative social value of Pablo Escobar’s drug cartel versus that of the criminal Central Bank cartel, it simply pales in both magnitude and lasting effect. In 1982, during the peak years of Escobar's operations, the global population was about 4.6 billion people. The decisions that the Central Banking cartel made back then negatively affected not 196 million people as did Pablo’s empire under a worst-case scenario, but exceeded this worst-case scenario by 4,404,000,000 people. Why does the negative reach of the Central Banking cartel extend so much further than that of a drug cartel? To begin, the Central Banking cartel’s fractional reserve banking policies drain the purchasing power from the savings of every single person on on the planet – fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Ever since their existence, Central Bankers have created massive amounts of new money through a process called fractional reserve banking that has created annual inflation rates that far exceed any annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) that any nation's citizens receive from their employers. Thus every year, the Central Banking cartel robs the wealth of every single man, woman and child on earth and deliberately makes every single human being’s life on this planet less enjoyable and more difficult. To compare apples to apples, we simply use the 4.6 billion global population figure that existed at the height of Escobar’s drug empire to estimate the negative-reach of the Central Banking cartel. Fractional reserve banking policies employed by every global commercial banker on earth makes it impossible for large percentages of people that dwell in poverty to ever move out of poverty, and these policies adopted systemically by Bank CEOs in the global banking system cause millions of people worldwide to lose homes, jobs, and emotional stability.

 

Most people don’t understand the above facts about fractional reserve banking policies because governments release bogus “official” inflation statistics through the banker-owned press and media. For example, in the US, the official government rate of inflation in September 2013 was 1.5% and was reported by the US government to be 1.6% for the entire 2013 fiscal year. However, the inflation rate in the US is only so low because, as ludicrous as this sounds, bankers literally have stripped out the largest components of inflation from the equation they use to calculate inflation. A comparable lie would be if you stripped out all components of heat from a heat index and reported that it was -30 Celsius at noon in the Saharan dessert during the hottest month of the year. If you take an honest equation for inflation, as others like John Williams of shadowstats.com have done, then we know inflation rates were more than 9%, or more than 6 times higher than the “official” US government inflation rate of 1.5%. In 2002, none other than the Chairman of the US Central Bank, Alan Greenspan, stated, “The price level in 1929 was not much different, on net, from what it had been in 1800. But in the two decades following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933, the consumer price index in the United States nearly doubled. And in the four decades after that, prices quintupled. Monetary policy, unleashed from the constraint of domestic gold convertibility, had allowed a persistent over issuance of money.” In essence, Greenspan stated that in just 60 years, prices had increased by 10 times due to fraud committed by Central Bankers and their deliberate “persistent over issuance of money" - fraud that negatively affected every human being on Planet Earth.

 

If you were a 20-year-old young adult that had just graduated college with a starting $30,000 a year salary in 1933, by 1993, just 60 years later, you would have to be earning an annual salary of $300,000 just for your salary to have the SAME purchasing power as your 1933 salary. In other words, you would have had no better a quality of life in terms of purchasing power, earning $300,000 a year in 1993 than you would have had earning just $30,000 a year in 1933 due to the Central Bank cartel’s destruction of currencies. Furthermore, since Alan Greenspan was using the bogus US government “official” rates of inflation to make his calculations, the above example I’ve provided actually UNDER-ESTIMATES the reality of the negative social impact of the Central Banking cartel as $300,000 1993 dollars would actually have LESS purchasing power than $30,000 1933 dollars. Of course, other tangibles such as better technology in 1993 versus 1933 would grant one a better overall quality of life, but technological advances that create improvements in quality of life are certainly not attributable to bankers.

 

If you’re old enough to remember growing up in a time where your father was the sole breadwinner of your household, your mother stayed at home and raised you, you had 2, 3, or even 4 other siblings, and no one was ever without food or clothes and you were considered middle class, that “middle class” life today has all but vanished and has become extinct thanks to the global scam of fractional reserve banking. And we can all thank the criminal Central Bank cartel, as well as their shills and misinformation agents such as Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, Bill Gates, Jamie Dimon, etc. for this new, much more miserable reality. It amazes me that even when ex-bankers like Greenspan make admissions of their criminal negative impact upon society, that those working within the banking industry still refuse to process the inherently immoral nature of the crime syndicate for whom they work, such is the utter success of bankers’ centuries-old propaganda campaigns.

 

Economic/GDP Contributions, Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

Let’s assume that the creation of debt has a net negative overall affect on society (as debt creation drains the wealth of individuals) while the creation of GDP has a net positive affect on society. In the past 15 years, G7 Central Bankers created $7 of debt for every $1 of GDP that they contributed to society, resulting in a net negative [-$6] contribution. In the late 1980s through the early 1990s, drug lord Pablo Escobar “came to control 75 percent of the global [cocaine] market, with [drug] revenues from trafficking equivalent to [a positive] +5 percent share of the country’s GDP.” (Source: Garcio -Bario, Constance. “U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farmers and Land”, 2 March 2004. Common Dreams Newscenter). In fact, Pablo Escobar always declared, at every opportunity afforded him, his belief that he was helping Colombia’s economy more than he was hurting it: "The entire economy benefits from drug money; those who traffic and those who do not. If a drug trafficker builds a house, the peasant who cuts the wood for it benefits from that." Unfortunately, it is exactly this flawed belief of Escobar's that valued money over all other factors, including morality, that the vast majority of today’s global Bank CEOs have embraced. Though there is no honor in the above statement, whether you agree with it or not, in regards to economic contributions to society, it is obvious that Escobar's drug cartel produced far more value in terms of GDP for society than bank cartels.

 

Goodwill, Drug Cartels V. Global Banks

Pablo Escobar, during the height of his drug cartel’s success, was credited with being directly responsible for pulling thousands of his countrymen out of poverty and providing them with jobs. With his billions of drug cartel money, Escobar built schools, hospitals, fútbol fields, and churches and even sponsored many little-league community fútbol teams. Escobar even built housing developments with his blood money and gave thousands of units to poor people rent-free. Of course, these actions were not all altruistic by any means as Pablo’s dealers also were known for widely distributing cocaine in the same housing developments that Escobar built for the poor. Thus, by giving away these apartments, Escobar was ensuring himself of a steady supply of customers. Despite these obvious contradictions, for all the goodwill that Pablo generated in Colombia, he was revered by thousands in his country as a saint during the height of his empire and still is today. However, to many others, he was and still is a monster.

 

While I am sure that Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Brian Moynihan, Stuart Gulliver, Michael Corbat, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Peter Zöllner, Christine Lagarde, Mario Draghi, and Mark Carney have all made sizeable donations in their communities at some point and to civic-minded organizations like hospitals and schools and the arts, their more prominent donations seem to be to the police state that can ensure that their rule of corruption will continue. JP MorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon’s well–publicized 2011 $4.6 million payoff to the New York Police Department coincided with a violent police crackdown on Occupy Wall Street protests of Wall Street’s biggest and most corrupt banks, including JP Morgan. Never in a thousand years would hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in any community anywhere in the world call Bernanke, Saint Ben, Blankfein, Saint Lloyd, Moynihan ,Saint Brian, or Dimon, Saint Jamie. Exploring this topic exposes the ludicrous nature of the inseparable relationship between Drug Lords and Bank Lords. If Bank CEOs did not launder Pablo’s money, Pablo would not have been able to build his schools, churches, medical facilities, homes and community recreational centers. Thus, are Bank CEOs contributing to society because they enable Drug Lords to provide thousands of jobs in their communities?

 

Global Wars: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

In the category of war and war crimes, who inflicts more harm upon humanity – Drug Lords or Bank CEOs? Though we know that Drug Cartels are drains on the financial resources and budgets of many governments worldwide due to the “War on Drugs” that governments wage upon them, these wars are limited in scope and finances, and are just a drop of water in the ocean when compared to the wars that are financed by Central Banks. Furthermore, the "War on Drugs" is a false war whose true purpose is not to eradicate drugs from neighborhoods but to enrich various parties involved in executing the War on Drugs, namely the military industrial complex, government officials and bankers. Criminal bank cartels are the first enablers of every major war in world history, and other than defense contractors, the largest war profiteers of any global industry. In some instances, the Central Bankers are even alleged to have instigated and encouraged wars to fulfill their own political agendas.

 

In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley, a Professor of History at Georgetown University, and US President Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote:

 

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the Central Banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”


Dr. Quigley stated that the key to the Banking Cartel’s success was to control and manipulate the currency supply of a nation while lying to and informing the public that their government was in control of the currency supply. Thus it is no coincidence that five countries the US has invaded in the last decade – Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Sudan – all are not member states of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Central Bank of Central Banks – while a sixth the US attempted to invade before being rebuffed by Russia’s Putin, Syria, is also NOT a member state of the BIS.

 

Although many American children have falsely been taught in schools that the Revolutionary War started with a protest against prohibitive taxes on tea and stamps known as the Boston Tea Party, Benjamin Franklin correctly explained that it was the inability of the Colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers, that was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War. However Ben Franklin was incorrect about his perceived success of the American Revolutionary War, because the Rothschild banking families still maintained control over America’s currency supply after the so-called “revolutionary” war ended.

 

French leader Napoleon Bonaparte stated: “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” In response to Napoleon’s rich understanding of the nefarious objectives of powerful banking families, the Rothschild banking cartel funded the Franco-Prussian war to allegedly put an end to Napoleon’s rule of France.

 

During the Civil War, US President Abraham Lincoln stated: “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.” President Lincoln was murdered on April 14, 1865, less than two months before the Civil War ended.

 

35th US President John F. Kennedy was intent on shutting down the US Federal Reserve and the IRS due to the same realizations of his predecessors that the Central Banking cartel was nothing more than a crime syndicate posing as a legitimate entity and signed Executive Order 1110 on June 4, 1963 that stopped the creation of US Federal Reserve Notes, removed the power of the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, Rothschilds, Warburgs, et al from creating currency in the United States, and returned the power of coining currency to the US Treasury, with the intent of forever retiring criminal fractional reserve currency from use inside the United States. Just five months later, JFK was murdered and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, immediately cancelled Executive Order 1110 and reinstated criminal fractional reserve banking in the United States.

 

To this day, the private banking families that own the US Federal Reserve are the principal financiers of all modern wars, including wars in Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. , providing the war appropriation funding to governments for which governments must pay these bankers interest. When estimates of the US-Iraq War alone have been in the $2 trillion range, it is self-evident that bankers are making out like bandits from funding such wars. Furthermore, as Central Bankers create massive amounts of money (debt) out of thin air to fund major wars, it is self-evident that the creation of 2 trillion new dollars just to fund the Iraqi War has a hugely negative impact upon world citizens as it destroys the purchasing power of all existing dollars in circulation. In other words, every major war leaves the citizens of the nations involved in that war, as well as all global holders of the two currencies used in the warring nations, poorer and in a worse economic state. Though it is beyond the scope of this article, if you research current global geopolitical tensions between Russia, China and the US by following the trail of money, you will discover that this too has originated from disputes over the desire of Federal Reserve bankers to maintain US dollar hegemony and to prevent the petro-Yuan from replacing the petro-dollar in international trade.

 

Furthermore though we have informed you earlier in this article that Pablo Escobar was believed to have been responsible for over 4,000 murders whereas El Chapo Guzman was believed to have been responsible for over 80,000 murders, these despicable inhumane statistics still pale in comparison to the more than 4,486 US soldiers killed, more than 1 million Iraqis killed, 3.5 to 5 million refugees, and 15 million Iraqis living in poverty, created from the singular US-Iraq War (Source: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/). Since Drug Wars to bring down Pablo Escobar don’t come anywhere close to creating the massive level of debt from just one war that Central Banks fund, nor do they come close to the numbers of murders that intense political wars cause, it is apparent that not even Drug Lords can compete with Bank Lords when it comes to spreading misery through the vehicle of global war.

 

Just a hundred years ago, it was common knowledge among the people that any war in which their leaders entangled them was going to cheapen the currency held in their savings, and consequently, the majority of people always fiercely contested every war and insisted on diplomacy over war whenever possible. Today, it is a sad state of affairs when bankers, through the vehicle of nationalism, have been able to convince people to cheer for their own economic demise, as stated announcements of war against other nations are often met with zombie-conditioned, nationalistic chants of “[insert country name here]” versus the thoughtful intelligent protests over currency devaluations that used to meet every single build-up to war just a couple of generations ago.

 

In conclusion, we have summed up the societal value of a drug cartel like Pablo Escobar’s cocaine empire versus the societal value of Global Banking/ Central Banking Crime Syndicates in the below chart.

 

do global bank CEOs do more harm to society than drug lords?

 

In every category above, the Drug Lord causes less damage to humanity than Bank Lords. When the negative social value of a violent murderous Drug Lord can be successfully argued to be far less than the negative social value created by a sociopathic Bank Lord, we have truly reached the crossroads to determine our future. Either we all stand united and take action starting today to topple the current immoral and misanthropic global banking system, or we resign ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to another century of slavery and tyranny. The collective choice is ours to make.


If you really care about the future of this world and the future of your children and grandchildren, I implore you to please send this article to every single person you know that works for a large global bank to enlighten them about the atrocious, horrific crimes that are being committed by their leaders. Robert Mazur, an anti-money laundering expert that works closely with US law enforcement agencies is on record as stating that "the only thing that will make the [bank CEOs] properly vigilant to what is happening is when they hear the rattle of handcuffs in the boardroom." As there could not have possibly been a stronger, air-tight case made in the favor of pre-meditation and prior knowledge of money laundering against HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver and other top executive HSBC bankers, and even this "can't fail" case failed to jail any HSBC banker, it is obvious that the only way to stop the crimes of the new Bank Lords is through grass-roots activism.

 

As I have repeatedly stated in this article, when the Bank CEOs know that there is zero risk of going to jail, even after they are caught, or of suffering any negative repercussions from continuing to bathe in blood money, they will never cease engaging in the types of crimes that drags the world further into darkness. And even if Nanex's Eric Scott Hunsader did say tongue-in-cheek that he would "put everything he had in Goldman Sachs because these guys can do whatever they want" after listening to the secret tapes whistleblower Carmen Segarra made of her conversations with her bosses and between her colleagues and Goldman Sachs executives, there are surely a lot of people that will act on such knowledge to help these Bank CEOs become even more powerful and wealthy (i.e. buying their stock instead of divesting, closing deals with them, etc.). In fact, today's Bank Lords enjoy a level of special immunity from prosecution against their crimes that no Drug Lord in history ever was able to secure, and this makes the Bank Lords even more powerful than the Drug Lords they are replacing in the global crime syndicate. And this is why only we can really force significant change and stop the transformation of the big bank CEOs into the next Pablo Escobars and El Chapo Guzmans. Please participate in raising awareness about this extremely important issue and help us to light up the darkness by sending this article to every friend or acquaintance you know that works for a large global bank and ask them to follow their consciousness and morality.

 

 

About the author: JS Kim is the Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU, a fiercely independent investment research, consulting and education firm. Learn how to combat banking corruption with targeted wealth preservation strategies and read our SmartWealth fact sheet to learn how you can win a free membership to our newest service, the SmartKnowledgeU SmartWealth Progra (an alternative educational program that breaks down how global capital markets really operate), coming soon. Follow us on Twitter, subscribe to ourYouTube Channel and join our LinkedIn group.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sirius Wonderblast's picture

...and Tesco got caught inflating it's results by a cool £250m.

robnume's picture

What do you mean new drug lords? Have you forgot the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International, BCCI? Or that scandal with Citibank Mexico about 10 to 15 years ago? I could go on and on. Amerika is the United States of Amnesia, alright.

r0mulus's picture

Pretty much my criticism as well...

I love Mr. Kim's blog and his writing in general, but I feel that this piece advances a false premise that, if the bank lords are the new drug lords, then they couldn't have been worse than the old drug lords.

In reality, I think Mr. Kim wants to argue that not only have they've always been, they've always been far worse than "the old drug lords", and therefore, that the "old drug lords" in fact have always been inferior to the bank lords.

In many cases, they were both. Take a look at the involvement between the British East India Company, Jardine Mathieson, and the Opium Wars in China, for example.

fibonacci's claus's picture

sagara has proven that goldman sachs runs the federal reserve the treasury and the financial regulators.  audit the fed !!!  ... the irs, epa, fda, dea, usda, ............. every last beaurocracy!!!!  every last "militarized" beauracracy, they all have their own private .gov funded armies now !!! 

 

if americans can't de-militarize the local police departments how are they going to de-militarize the beaurocracies?  These militarized beaurocracys are being used against u.s citizens inside the u.s .............  treachery.  POINT BLANK TREASON !

IronForge's picture

And WHY is HSBC still operating in the USA?

conscious being's picture

Because they are protected Banksters. Otherwise they'd be in prison.

SocialismIsCancer's picture

Just released data from NASA solar research reveals that bankers are also responsible for solar flares, and are supected of a conspiracy to create gravity so as to hold everyone down.

combatsnoopy's picture

Does anyone want to know China's side to the story? 

They're so not innocent, Sino Pharm is in bed with the corruption that is um...Bristol Myers Squibb who just sold their diabetes section to AstroZeneca who might be passing that off.

Is China really on drugs or are they censored by American interests?
Enquiring minds want to know.  

combatsnoopy's picture

I wonder if the bankers have as much sophistication as big pharma.  I do think that Big pharma could checkmate the bankers and may pose an even bigger danger to the banking sector.  I mean, bankers COULD cut big pharma's funding, but big pharma can too easily poison them.

Tech COULD get them both, but techies don't want it badly enough... Google isn't running up the score like they should and Apple is a false positive.

This might be a real conversation in the 4th branch of Government:

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?

Man in Black: Australia.

Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're just stalling now.

Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

Man in Black: Then make your choice.

Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?

Man in Black: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]

Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.

Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

Man in BlackVizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]

Man in Black: You guessed wrong.

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]

Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.....

 

Fezzik: You never said anything about killing anyone.

Vizzini: I've hired you to help me start a war. It's an prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

Fezzik: I just don't think it's right, killing an innocent girl.

Vizzini: Am I going MAD, or did the word "think" escape your lips? You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass.

Inigo Montoya: I agree with Fezzik.

Vizzini: Oh, the sot has spoken. What happens to her is not truly your concern. I will kill her. And remember this, never forget this: when I found you, you were so slobbering drunk, you couldn't buy brandy!

[turning to Fezzik]

Vizzini: And YOU: friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed, in Greenland? 

excerpts from The Princess Bride 

JR's picture

Nothing is shocking in this world of drug money and U.S. taxpayer money flowing to the oligarchs worldwide and especially to the Goldmanite Mafia. The following 2001 investigation (naming names like Summers, Rubin, et. al) fits the current work of JS Kim. Fighting this corruption is super tough because of its international connections and the fact that the international laundering and corruption of the financial world operates under cover of the officials who make it all possible at IMF, Treasury, the World Bank, the G-7, the U.S. Congress…

Here is how the Goldmanite Mafia passed on Russia’s wealth to primarily Jewish oligarchs enriched in Yeltsin's Russia through privatization scams.

Larry Summers' past revisited ~

"U.S. Taxpayers' Backed IMF Loans Go Into Pockets of Clinton Cronies" (Special to The Wanderer)

April 15, 2001 --WASHINGTON, D.C. - Expert witnesses at House Banking Committee hearings last week (Sept. 21st-22nd) on Russian money-laundering through U.S. banks provided an eye-popping view of the world of runaway capitalism as practiced today in Moscow and New York, London and Lugano, Berlin and Beirut.

It's a world where billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are transferred to the International Monetary Fund and then filtered through a small number of well-placed people - only a few dozen, in Russia, New York, Washington, and Boston - who launder the money into private accounts on Wall Street and into the coffers of some of the world's major banks.

A host of witnesses from government, private investigation and research firms, former CIA and KGB agents and other authorities told the committee, whose ranking members are Republican Jim Leach of Iowa and Democrat John La Falce of New York, that U.S. foreign aid policy in Russia is responsible for bankrupting the nation, facilitating the greatest plunder of the country's natural and artistic wealth since Lenin and creating a ruthless class of gangster billionaires.

Among those testifying was noted Russia expert, journalist, and author Anne Williamson, whose 1998 book “How America Built the Russian Oligarchy” reveals, inter alia, how current Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, chief economist at the World Bank in 1990, passed the Russian "cookie plate to Goldman Sachs," and how Harvard economists created the new Russian kleptocracy.

In 1992, Williamson told the committee, President George Bush initiated the financial plundering of Russia (estimated at $400 billion by now) by sending a corps of financial experts under the direction of Gerald Corrigan of the New York Federal Reserve to Russia to teach the nomenklatura how to play the bond

game.

"So lush were the bond market's rewards," she said, "that dubious market participants included the Russian Central Bank itself through an offshore firm known as Fimaco. The involvement of the Harvard Institute of International Development [HIID; the same outfit that brought `crash capitalism' and poverty to Eastern Europe] honchos in the same conflict of interest activities has already been admitted publicly…the object of a Boston grand jury's scrutiny…

"According to the Russian Interior Ministry's Department of Organized Crime, Western employees of Russian banks, Western bankers and consultants, Russian bankers, and anecdotal evidence, other participants include certain employees of the U.S. Treasury, of the multilateral agencies, and policy and program consultants acting through accounts established in their wives' maiden names with non-U.S. reporting brokerages in Moscow. . . .

"One particularly striking aspect of Bill Clinton's presidency," she continued, "is how aggressively his administration worked to capture the political support of the financial sector, offering heretofore unseen gobs of government favor. (A disproportionate number of firms receiving OPIC guarantees, Export-Import bank lending, and IFC and Russian Enterprise Fund participation were generous contributors to both Clinton campaign coffers and the DNC). . . .

"The aid program . . . was really only an exotic venue through which to pass public funds to select Russians of the Clintons' and HIID's choosing and to Wall Street investment banks the Clintons hoped to entice permanently into their orbit of supporters and contributors. In short, the Russian bond market was the Arkansas Development Finance Authority gone  international.

Following the creation of the bond market and "voucher privatization" under the Russian ruling class, Williamson explained, "there ensued a years-long highly criminal and oftentimes murderous scramble for hands-on control of the enterprises. Directors stashed profits abroad, withheld employees' wages, and after cash famine set in, used those wages, confiscated profits and state subsidies to `buy' the workers' shares from them. The really good stuff – oil companies, metals plants, telecoms - was distributed essentially to seven people, `the oligarchs,' on insider auctions whose results were agreed beforehand."

Supporting Cast (see story for testimony) U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers; Fritz Ermath, former CIA chief Russian analyst and National Security Council official;  Richard Palmer, former CIA station chief in Europe and founder of the Washington-based Cachet International, which specializes in international organized crime;  Arnaud de Borchgrave, noted author and director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Yuri Shvets, former KGB agent.

Telling the Financial Truth

It was Williamson's testimony, however, which gave the larger story of how the Russian money-laundering caper and the Clinton administration's complicity is part of a bigger financial picture that goes back to the creation of the Federal Reserve…

Once the state slipped off the `golden handcuffs' of budgetary discipline through the establishment of the Federal Reserve, it gained the ability to create unlimited debt, thereby claiming for itself what before had been the purview of tyrants - the ability to debase the currency.

"It is the slow leaching of value from the U.S. dollar, not the far lesser sums raised by direct taxation, which has enabled the political class to purchase votes for its re-election. The degradation of American society since 1971 is often remarked upon.

"Any pyramid scheme remains viable only so long as its base continues to expand and it is that fact which has driven U.S. foreign policy for much of the past century. Since politicians and investment bankers both have an interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt, they were quick to come to terms with new markets and natural resources from abroad. Taxpayer-subsidized globalism then is not a new phenomenon, but it has reached an apogee of sorts under the guiding hand of the current Clinton administration. . . .

"The 1930s were the last era in which the international political and financial elite sought advantage through control of the global economy. What economists call `hot money' raced from one nation to the next throughout that era, leaving a trail of competitive currency devaluations in its wake. Six decades ago, as nation after nation was humbled by and strangled with the manipulations of the financial world's insiders, history saw fit to serve up Adolf Hitler.

"A world war and a score of years later, the allies established the IMF as a prophylactic money bag to prevent destabilizing trade imbalances and therefore, they thought, a repetition of the preceding decade's nightmare. Yet over half a century later, the IMF, the World Bank, and their similarly U.S.-controlled spawn - the IFC, the six regional development banks, and the EBRD - have become 800-pound gorillas of economic distortion and, over time, of pillage which unchecked will guarantee extensive international conflict and broadly based anti-Americanism. . . .

"The ascendancy of Treasury in foreign policy at the State Department's expense is the result of a neo-mercantilist foreign policy in which enterprise is to be subject to direction from the presidential administration it is to serve. By expanding mandates and accelerating the use of a host of international agencies in which the U.S. is dominant - the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD, the regional development banks, the IFC - and combining their efforts with those of the Commerce Department, the Export-Import Bank, OPIC, and USAID-financed Enterprise Funds, the Clintons succeeded in constructing an international patronage machine in which the American executive stands supreme. . . .

"Taking the IMF's behavior in Russia as a guide . .. we can expect a rapid escalation of taxpayers' liabilities in the service of failed policies. . . .

"The `new paradigm' economy concocted by the Harvard-connected Clinton administration appointees in the U.S. Treasury, was designed to extend the federal government's meddling hand worldwide through its control of the multilateral and bilateral public lenders. . . . The overall scheme works as follows:

"Sell assistance programs on an alleged `free market' and `humanitarian' basis by awarding government grants to those academics who can be relied upon to supply the intellectual camouflage politicians and journalists then repeat ad nauseam to a distracted public, move the IMF and the World Bank to target, induce target to raise taxes, fine tune target's government banking operations, encourage borrowing and debt creation through the target's government and national banks, allowing IMF funding to pay yields if necessary; induce target to privatize national property while building a flimsy, artificial `infrastructure' for an equities market good enough to attract high risk foreign investors. Once the target nation's government flounders, step back and watch speculators assert discipline through a run on the target's currency. The subsequent devaluation delivers, in turn, a flood of cheap imports to American manufacturers and producers.

"The finishing touch on the swindle is to confiscate more money from G-7 citizens (the lion's share from Americans) to pay for what is said to be an `essential' IMF bailout; thereby allowing Uncle Sam's IMF minions to entrench themselves more deeply in the target's government. Taxes are raised, the population struggles beneath indebtedness, government funding demands, and the inevitable domestic inflation a devaluation delivers…

"U.S. taxpayers get hit coming (foreign aid) and going (bailouts) and innocent foreigners' property is finagled away either from, or on account of, inattentive and corrupt leaderships. The big winners are the world's increasingly corrupt and cozy governing class, international bureaucracies, and global banks…

 http://www.apfn.org/APFN/taxpayer.htm

The Abstraction of Justice's picture

I remember that Bob Chapman asserted that the Russian oligarchs were all Jewish minions of the Rothschilds. I have not seen anything positive that discredits that assertion.

conscious being's picture

This mass looting of his people by an international cartel is what Putin put an end to and why he is hated so by the paid posters and banking / zino-sycophants [for ideologic or ethnic reasons] here on Zero Hedge and out in the bankster controlled MSM.

q99x2's picture

Arrest Loyd Blankfein.

russwinter's picture

Wolfgang Halbig Sheds More Light on Sandy Hook Fraud:

http://winteractionables.com/?p=14967

 

It’s been nearly two years since this sick hat-trick cut-out event was perped, and it is my firm belief that Sandy Hook involved a consortium of organized crime, deep-state contractors, including the media, and a totally corrupt state. It is important to understand that events like this are compartmentalized with fewer actors than is generally perceived by the public.  They use tricks to create an illusion. When you go into the case this aspect will blow your mind.

theprofromdover's picture

Sandy Hook-

I read that the FBI's crime statistcs for 2012 in Connecticut showed no deaths at Newtown Sandy Hook.

Curiouser and curiouser.

JR's picture

Big news this week as the Atlanta school system cheating scandal heads for justice (superintendent, administrators, teachers, coordinators and all the rest). It parallels the corruption and intensity of America’s financial tyranny which is not headed for justice. And the reason for both scandals is the harlots of Congress, purchased and paid for by the tyrants who are imposing their totalitarianism on America.

It’ll be okay to put teachers in jail, of course, but not bankers. And, eventually, as the corruption deepens, we won’t even be able to put teachers in jail.

Professor Werner Sombart, a German economist and sociologist, in 1911 recognized that this perversion of order in which leadership among the financial, industrial and commercial interests were merged into powerful groups that had secured “a monopoly in the creation of national credit and these groups, being internationally organized, have only to be left free in order to dominate the earth.”

In his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben  (The Jews and Modern Capitalism), Sombart sums up today’s situation as he did Europe’s in 1911:

If we want to make clear in one sentence the direction in which the modern political economy is moving we can say: the stock-exchange agents of the banks are becoming an ever-increasing measure the dictators of economic life. All economic happenings are more and more subordinate to the decisions of finance. The question whether a new industrial undertaking is to spring up or an existing one to be developed; whether the owner of a shop or a store is to get the means to extend his business, all these questions are decided in the offices of Banks and Bankers.

“In just the same way the sale of products is becoming, in an ever greater degree, a problem of finance. Our greatest industries are indeed already just as much financial associations as industrial undertakings.”

Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s issued a similar warning: “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again.  Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” (Speaking at the University of Texas, 1927)

Lastly,, G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, warns:

“All of the money to accomplish these bailouts was made possible by the Federal Reserve System acting as the ‘lender of last resort.’  That was one of the purposes for which it had been created. We must not forget that the phrase ‘lender of last resort’ means that money is created out of nothing, resulting in confiscation of our nation's wealth through the hidden tax called inflation.”

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Many years ago federal law enforcement was specifically ordered not to follow the money since it was a yellow brick road leading to the largest banks...

messystateofaffairs's picture

Ask Al capon's ghost. Prohibited commodities provide irresistible gross margins that can easily finance the supply chain mechanisms required to deliver them to the willing and wanting consumer. Those who have a high appetite for risk and are both ambitious and ruthless are best suited to become the successful entrepreneurs in the prohibition business. All that is required is the usual dumb ass gubbermint to provide the prohibition.

Renfield's picture

<<when the Bank CEOs know that there is zero risk of going to jail, even after they are caught, or of suffering any negative repercussions from continuing to bathe in blood money, they will never cease engaging in the types of crimes that drags the world further into darkness. And even if Nanex's Eric Scott Hunsader did say... there are surely a lot of people that will act on such knowledge to help these Bank CEOs become even more powerful and wealthy (i.e. buying their stock instead of divesting, closing deals with them, etc.). In fact, today's Bank Lords enjoy a level of special immunity from prosecution against their crimes that no Drug Lord in history ever was able to secure, and this makes the Bank Lords even more powerful than the Drug Lords they are replacing in the global crime syndicate.>>

The western 'justice' system has completely discredited itself. I wish the Hedge had a few legal historians - I would love to read an article and comments discussing a better system of justice, that a small independent town or region could set up and administer. Just for discussion, maybe to consider in a post-global world.

<<And this is why only we can really force significant change and stop the transformation of the big bank CEOs into the next Pablo Escobars and El Chapo Guzmans. Please participate in raising awareness about this extremely important issue and help us to light up the darkness by sending this article to every friend or acquaintance you know that works for a large global bank and ask them to follow their consciousness and morality.>>

Raising awareness is the best way to fight back. We cannot stop them without violence, and at some point it probably does come to that. But for now, educate, and speak clearly. Their best weapons are shame and silence. (It certainly isn't the plausibility of their Big Lies.) Never stop pointing out the nakedness of the puppet emperor.

smartknowledgeu's picture

In response to your comment above, we just received this following email. We won't use the author's name b/c we don't know if he wanted to remain anonymous or not as he did not specify this in his email to us. However, here are his comments below regarding bringing bankers to justice:

 

In your article 'Bank CEOs are the New Drug Lords' at

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-29/bank-ceos-are-new-drug-lords you


state:


'The only redeeming excuse that HSBC, Citigroup, Wachovia, and other Bank CEOs may have (that have collectively laundered billions upon billions of drug cartel blood money) is a proven ignorance of these activities occurring within their banking operations.'


However, a person can be found guilty without proof of direct knowledge of the fraud/crime. In 'Trial of the City of Glasgow Bank Directors', Ed. William Wallace, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1905, p. 370-406(http://archive.org/details/trialofcityofgla00city) the judge stated (p.
374):


'But while I say that, gentlemen, I by no means mean to say that the knowledge which you must find must necessarily be deduced from direct evidence of it. You are not entitled to assume it; but you are entitled to infer that fact, as you are entitled to infer any other fact, from facts and circumstances which show and carry to your mind the conviction that the man
when he circulated, or when he made that balance sheet, knew that it was false. You must be quite satisfied, however, before you can draw that conclusion, not merely that it is probable, or likely, or possible that he knew, but that he did, in point of fact, know the falsehood of which he is accused.'


the key words are:


'you are entitled to infer that fact, as you are entitled to infer any other fact, from facts and circumstances which show and carry to your mind the conviction that the man when he circulated, or when he made that balance sheet, knew that it was false'


So, when people say that bankers cannot be convicted because there is no direct proof that they knew of the crime THIS IS FALSE - a jury can INFER KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME from the facts and circumstances of the case.

fleur de lis's picture

Gary Webb's story will be told in an upcoming movie called "Kill the Messenger." He exposed the government's role in the spread of the drug epidemic in a series of newspaper articles called "Dark Alliance."  For his bravery he was murdered.

http://www.focusfeatures.com/kill_the_messenger

conscious being's picture

Driven from The SJ Mercury, he moved on to The Sacramento Bee where he was suicided with two (2) shots to the head.

Pee Wee's picture

Don't kid yourselves, the collusion is far larger than any drug cartel.   The two greatest heists in the history of money are occuring right under the noses of JQ Taxpayer.

Pensions - Gone

Savers - Robbed every second of every day

Bank racketeering is the only game in town.  Bought and paid for with central planning Inc.

...AND when they all fail, bailouts and record bonuses for all "God's work."

Transparency, truth and justice be damned.  The rot is totally pervasive and systemic from top to bottom.   Crickets from Holder's USDOG.

JRobby's picture

The two heists we know about. There are more, many, many more.

Stay tuned fans! 2014 - fun is just beginning.

 

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

in the economic analysis we are fed ..crime / justice is omitted..2008 the bond ratings and derivative markets were criminal operations, no analysis of our economy can be done without corruption and crime accounted for.

juangrande's picture

Why is this article assuming drug lords and global banking were/are separate entities? They have been as inseperable as Ma and Pa Kettle!

smartknowledgeu's picture

With all due respect, I did state in the article above that "you must connect the dots between the Bank CEOs that launder drug cartel money and the crimes committed by these drug cartels because the dots can NOT be separated" and "both actions are inextricably linked to one another". 

Furthermore, I believe its more accurate to say that the relationship beween Drug Lords and Bank CEOs is symbiotic, or co-dependent, rather than stating that the Drug Lords work for the Bankers. As Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs & Crime, noted, "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital [in H2 of 2008]" to some banks on the verge of collapse.  The Drug Lords are well aware of this, and thus, the Drug Lords retain and exercise leverage over bankers as well as they can cut off liquidity for a great portion of the entire global banking system just by ceasing to launder their cash through the banks with whom they have cut deals. Thank you for your comment.

Sources:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/managing-the-plaza-americas-secret-deal-wit...

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-...

juangrande's picture

Fair enough. What I believe happened was banking cartels sniffed out the incredible opportunity that drug prohibition presented as early as the Chinese opium days. The link between the various cartels are the spooks of various nationalities and eras. These are the go-betweens who keep the "unsullied" from being "sullied".

As your article mentions, all wars lead to bank profits. The US drug war has been going on since the 20's but really intensified since Nixon. That makes it a 40 yr. police action which became a 40 yr. full scale war. Cha-ching!

armageddon addahere's picture

Try the 1780s. England developed the Chinese opium trade to reduce two large balance of payments deficits, the cost of governing India, by growing opium in India to sell to China, and to pay for the large quantities of Chinese tea and other goods they were importing every year.

The Opium Wars of the 1840s were England's crushing of the Chinese government's opposition to the massive amounts of drugs they were forcing on the country.

 

Wild tree's picture

SKU,

Excellent article, and worth reading. You connected the dots, and confirmed for most of us what we already knew. The Power is so entrenched, that I despair of every coming to a solution short of the revolution being foretold. It will not be without serious loss of life, and unnamed hardship. I am withdrawing from the system as much as I can, short of defaulting. There will come a time for that as well, just not yet.

 

I encourage you SKU, to lock up your nail guns, as they seem to be eager to find victims of Truth Spoken.

usednabused's picture

Exactly. Its like who's working for who here. Make no mistake, the drug lord works for the banker. Not the other way around. And all the fucking politicians in  the world work for those same bankers too. It would be impossible for them to be politicians if that were not the case. Which is precisely why the bastards enjoy immunity at all levels for whatever they might do. And why nothing can change that but some extreme violence. Its coming and unavoidable. The bankers with their bought and paid for governments and militaries against the ordinary people of the world. Its happenning in the Ukraine, in Syria, Iraq, and many more places right now and it will come to the USSA also.

Notsobadwlad's picture

I think that history pretty solidly shows that banking is a much more violent and abusive business than drug money.

CuttingEdge's picture

Only difference being they use nailguns instead of more conventional weaponry.

AdvancingTime's picture

 I share the disgust of many Americans to hear confirmed Federal Reserve regulators were in bed with the enemy or at best asleep at the wheel. While pondering the ruckus being made over revelations and tapes that Fed regulators were to darn cozy with Goldman Sachs I found myself wondering if Janet Yellen might be forced to resign.

I concede it may be rather early to start asking this but if a full scale scandal does develop over these revelations she has a problem. The Fed  has few friends and little in the way of a political base. If Americans become riled enough to demand change or that someone resign, the Federal Reserve chairman would be an easy target. The bonus being Yellen would not have a great number of supporters step up in her defense and she could be blamed for many of our economic ills caused as a direct result of policies the Fed controls. More on the logic of this somewhat remote scenario in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/09/yellen-could-be-forced-to-resign....

Hail Spode's picture

The problem is not that Janet Yellen is the head of the "Federal" Reserve.  The problem is that the "Federal" Reserve exists.   You cannot have both central banking and decentralized government.   Since like the Founders, I believe in de-centralized government, I oppose central banking and indeed the very idea that government should issue the currency.   We should go BEYOND eliminating the fed, and take the power to issue money out of the government's hands.   When they crash the dollar would be a good time to do it.  Government is supposed to enforce contracts, but when they issue the money they are a party to the implied contract that the value of that money will be kept sound by the issuer.  They are not going to enforce the contract against themselves and they ARE going to escape their obligation to keep the currency they issue sound.  History has proven that.   Make sense so far?  Here is the blue print for America 2.0 http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Philosophy-Government-Mark-Moore/dp/06922...

Pee Wee's picture

Sound money.  (*laughs*)

Hail Spode's picture

Sound money is money that makes a musical sound when struck.  Gold and silver for example.

Richard Chesler's picture

“Is it possible to prove that a notoriously violent Drug Lord provided more positive value to society during his reign of terror than criminal Bank Lords like Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein & Stuart Gulliver are providing during theirs?”


Is that a trick question?

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

HSBC got their START by laundering drug money, during the Opium Wars.  Jardine Matheson was their primary accomplice, if memory serves.

Some things never change.