Cyprus Steal: The West's Premeditated Bank Robbery

VANCOUVER, Canada (Bullions Bull Canada) -- The veils have been removed. The open criminality of Western regimes is now on display for all the world to see. Bank robbery is now official government policy across the West with no debate and no voting.

As was noted in my original commentary on this government-perpetrated crime, it was immediately obvious that this was an entirely staged/scripted event. To fully comprehend the premeditated nature of this crime requires a detailed examination of the chronology.

December 10, 2012:

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the UK Bank of England jointly release a "position paper" titled "Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions." Sounds wonderful: "resolving." They are finally coming up with a plan to put the "Too Big To Fail" fraud factories out of our misery. Wrong.

This document is a blueprint for precisely the opposite: propping up these TBTF monstrosities forever. This manifesto was simply coming up with new "proposals for financing" -- i.e. feeding the Beast. And one of these proposals was the "bail-in."
... Item 19 The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)... emphasis mine

Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful "free press?" In fact, why did the media not even mention the "bail-in" was now government policy for the U.S. and UK?

And what about our "leaders," the politicians? Why did not a single one of these stalwarts in the U.S./UK utter so much as a "peep" about bank robbery becoming official government policy in the United States and United Kingdom?

Because when these traitor governments made this their "official policy" they never fully defined what they really meant by "bail-in." Here is as close as the FDIC/Bank of England come to telling the truth:
...A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors... emphasis mine

Why were no UK politicians protesting the "bail-in?" Because when the Bank of England spoke of "allocating losses to...unsecured creditors" no one would have dreamed that what this central bank really meant was stealing the money out of peoples' bank accounts.

It should be noted that while that provision was explicitly designated as applying only to "the U.K. regime" that it can be implicitly understood that it applies to the U.S. as well. While the provisions for "the U.S. regime" do not use the term "bail-in," here is the vague language which was employed:
...Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors... emphasis mine

The official policy of the U.S. government is precisely the same as that of the UK (hence the joint "position paper"). The FDIC simply didn't articulate its own plans for bank robbery to the same degree. Put another way: There were seven sections detailing how the UK would "resolve" these "systemically important institutions" (but no mention of bank-robbery) versus only two sections for the U.S.

Now we come to the remainder of the chronology, which not only proves that the Cyprus Steal was planned (at least) as far back as December 2012, but that the fix was in: our traitor governments had already reached agreement with the traitor government of Cyprus to perpetrate this crime.

March 15:

The EU banking cabal and its puppet politicians "surprise" the world by announcing a plan to steal money out of the bank accounts of ordinary people in order to "recapitalize" a private bank in Cyprus, while a publicly owned bank would be liquidated and also fed to the private bank. Victimizing the people twice in order to temporarily prop up another reckless/insolvent fraud factory.

As noted previously, this was obviously a proposal intended to fail in this silly, two-act theater. This was proven by the zealous insistence of the European Central Bank that the original proposal must "magnify the hit" on smaller depositors. This would ensure maximum public outrage, and guarantee that the politicians would vote against it.

The ECB is the third member of the Western Troika, along with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. They were solely responsible for the final language of the original proposal; solely responsible for its rejection.

March 19:

Cyprus politicians (government and opposition alike) unanimously reject the "bail-in." What a surprise!

March 21:

Stephen Harper, leader of Canada's Conservative government officially tables the 2013 Canadian Budget, which makes the "bail-in" the official law of Canada.
page 145 The Government proposes to implement a bail-in regime for systemically important banks...

As with the U.S. and UK, the Canadian document contains nothing but weasel-words that never fully define what "bail-in" really means -- i.e. robbing peoples' bank accounts to temporarily prop-up reckless/parasitic banks.

Is Stephen Harper the most stupid politician in the Western world? Two days after the government of Cyprus unanimously rejects bank robbery as a means to "recapitalize banks," Harper makes this the official law of Canada. Would he really want to go into the next election as "Stephen Harper: Bank Robber of the West" or did Harper know something then almost no one else knew?

March 25:

The government of Cyprus approves the "new and improved" Cyprus Steal amid reports that the Big Money had already been warned about this bank robbery, and had moved their own money out weeks/months ahead of time.

Now our picture is complete.

We have our traitor governments planning this bank robbery months in advance and warning the big-money oligarchs so they would not be affected. We have them then staging an "emergency."

The TG's then tell us that because of this "emergency" they need to instantly raise a lot of money, and so they don't have time to fairly and systematically "tax" people with some broad, general levy; rather, they "need to" simply seize wealth from a particular group of targeted victims.

This time it was stealing money out of bank accounts. Next time it might be confiscating pensions. The blueprint (i.e. script) is now firmly in place:
  • (Secretly) plan the robbery.
  • Warn the Big Money (so all their wealth is moved to safety).
  • Announce/stage an "emergency."
  • Perpetrate the theft.

The criminality of the West's traitor governments is now a matter of record. Their written confessions are contained in official, public documents.

The question then becomes: What will be the response of the Sheep -- i.e. the pseudo-citizens of these regimes? Will they simply sit back and submit to a "taxation regime" that has now abandoned even the pretense of legitimacy?

If the answer to that question is "yes" then one can only conclude the Sheep deserve to be robbed. They elect these traitor governments. They continue snoozing when the politicians publicly announce they plan on openly stealing from them. They allow themselves to be robbed.

You can't help victims who refuse to help themselves.

What about the rest of us, the remaining citizens of these once-legitimate regimes? We have no choice but to protect ourselves -- not with guns, but with our brains.

With first "MF Global" and now the Cyprus Steal we have incontrovertible proof that no paper asset is safe in the West. Period.

We must therefore divest ourselves of as much paper as possible, with "physical" gold and silver bullion being the best/safest option. Do not pump every last penny of your wealth into our "bubble" real-estate markets. They are all doomed to suffer major crashes.

Obviously, we will receive no further "warnings" from our governments.

This article was written by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

More from Opinion

These 5 Tech Giants Still Aren't That Expensive

These 5 Tech Giants Still Aren't That Expensive

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's Ouster Proves CEOs Aren't Above the Rules

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's Ouster Proves CEOs Aren't Above the Rules

Red Hat CFO Tells TheStreet: Tech Trends Are Still in Our Favor

Red Hat CFO Tells TheStreet: Tech Trends Are Still in Our Favor

Throwback Thursday: Intel Edition

Throwback Thursday: Intel Edition

Intel's Next CEO Should Try Harder to Protect Its Flanks Against AMD and Others

Intel's Next CEO Should Try Harder to Protect Its Flanks Against AMD and Others