Why the euro bailout is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history ... By Norman Lamont (left) ... The recent decision by the Bank of England to pump another £75billion into the economy shows that Britain, far from recovering, remains on the edge of another dip. But what happens to the British and world economy is, to a large extent, out of our hands. The greatest threat to our economic future is what is happening in the eurozone. The scale of the euro crisis has made one thing abundantly plain: Europe, Britain and the rest of the world would be better off if the euro had never happened. It would be preferable if it were now dismantled in an orderly manner. – Daily Mail/Norman Lamont
Dominant Social Theme: No matter what, the euro and the EU will survive! It's the most important thing in the history of humankind. If the euro unravels, humanity will face endless horror and war. Plus Brussels will slip back into obscurity.
Free-Market Analysis: Well, what does this mean? One could speculate that the Rothschilds – maybe the richest and most powerful family in the world – have decided to wind down the EU experiment. One would like to think so anyway ...
We believe the Rothschilds are perhaps the chief central banking family in the world, with tremendous, almost unfathomable clout. In the mainstream press, however, it must be noted that the Rothschilds are portrayed as family whose great wealth has been dissipated and that they have no more power than numerous mid-level banking dynasties. Yet in our view, based on an overall pattern of financial activities past and present, the Rothschilds have enormous power, far more than the mainstream press ordinarily acknowledges, probably for obvious reasons.
Such "central banking families" (though chiefly the Rothschilds) are likely behind the EU, not the Germans or "socialists" or any other group ordinarily mentioned. The great Anglosphere banking families and their enablers have spent a lot of time trying to combine nations into larger regions from what we can tell, and Europe was to be their biggest success. The idea was that these regions would serve as stepping-stones for global government.
In order to signal a change in policy, Money Power uses a variety of resources. It is surely necessary to make a signal to the public if one wants to, say, detach from the euro, and at least two big signals seem to have appeared recently, among a number of smaller ones. Such analysis is speculative of course, but Lamont's article is a powerful one and it could have a meaning beyond one man's personal opinion.
Another such blunt article recently appeared in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, a very negative assessment of the euro; now Norman Lamont, a former Rothschild banker, has elaborated on the euro's failure in the UK Daily Mail. It is true that Lamont has a reputation as a Eurosceptic, but the article joins a number of negative articles that have appeared in the Anglosphere mainstream press of late. And Lamont's stands out because of its bluntness. At the very least, it is a sign of the times.
Who is he, exactly? Wikipedia gives his title as Baron Lamont of Lerwick and reminds us that he is "best-known for his period serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer, from 1990 until 1993." Lamont was chancellor under John Major; in fact, he had been a key supporter of Major after Margaret Thatcher lost favor and ultimately power because of her opposition to the EU-centric Maastricht Treaty. Before entering Parliament he worked for investment bank N M Rothschild & Sons and was director of Rothschild Asset Management. Here's some more from the article:
Eurozone leaders are already drawing up plans to get round their national parliaments to increase funding [to alleviate the sovereign crisis] if necessary Yet leaders of eurozone countries appear determined to keep the show on the road, however much voters and their parliaments object to the project. Never mind that the €440 billion fund is already considered too little too late — or that the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso resorted yesterday to demanding Britain helps bail out Greece even though we're not a member of the eurozone ...
Euroscepticism is on the rise everywhere in Europe. European politicians know well that fiscal and political union of eurozone countries, with an economic policy determined by Germany, is not going to be acceptable to the eurozone's voters. Citizens do not want decisions on taxes and spending determined outside their own nation. Because of mounting opposition to the rescue plan, Mrs Merkel's policy at each stage has been to do the minimum necessary to keep the currency afloat. But this has not restored confidence, and the Americans have become increasingly alarmed at the threat the euro poses to the world. There are no easy answers.
The uncomfortable truth is that, instead of rescuing it, it would probably have been better if Greece had been allowed to default. That would have hurt French banks holding Greek bonds. But the problem would have been containable and it would have been far better to have got the crisis over with, than to allow it to fester while writing large cheques that are going to create as many problems as they solve. There comes a point where the political costs of rescuing the euro are too high. As Winston Churchill once observed, if we do not face reality, reality will face us. It would be better to recognise that the euro experiment has failed.