Skip to main content

Exposing The South African Reserve Bank (SARB)

It's no secret that the Feds little cousin, the SARB runs financially unsound monetary policy.  Furthermore, it engages and manages the government in a corrupt and unethical way. The global bankster-owned establishment which parades as a part public shareholder owned enterprise (unlike its US counterpart) is little more than a local branch office of, let's face it, Evil Incorporated. Perhaps that's seeming at the risk of being a little dramatic but for reading purposes, drama does no harm to banking matters in the interest department. And yes, I spent ages setting up that last pun...

We'll see how well Putin and BRICS do wooing government away from this reserve bank lot, because in the end it boils down to the same crowd behind Anglo, De Beers and Lonmin and the major players who have themselves mined SA's mineral wealth AND (basically) shipped it to themselves and their holding companies.  We already know BRICS was too late for Trevor Manual.

A Manual for the dark side...

 Meanwhile I strongly urge you to read this gutting expose by former SARB director Stephen Goodsen  where he not only reveals the corrupt core of South Africa's Central Bank, but more stunning revelations on the biggest crime in the history of the country, Project Hammer, where SAs people were robbed of thousands of tons of gold to prop up Americas failing banks like Citibank, JP Morgan and and the boys, right up to 1989, with former president FW De Klerk the biggest offender, and it would not even surprise me if the murder of FWs wife was somehow related, but theres no evidence for that.

Police attempt to arrest SARB former Director turned Whistle-blower but fail.

Banknotes: Always autographed but inexpressive and passionless.

Reserve Bank Shareholders have no say or role other than as a signature to help the organisation pose as if it were an accountable pvt company.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute  for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…