Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Iceland Gets "ENRONed," Then Goes For "1776"

Part 2, Act IV

The City of London "Pulls the Trigger"
While the U.S. Financiers Ignore Iceland
and Rescue the "Better Connected"

First edition published 30 May 2010

Biggest Mistake of the Financial Crisis: Lehman Bros. Bankruptcy, by Joann Weiner,, 15 Sept 2009, describes the financial tsunami that hit the world in September and October 2008 that even wiped out a big part of Norway's government pension fund:

Starting with the September 15 Lehman bankruptcy and continuing beyond the September 19 rescue of the mutual fund industry, the U.S. government did whatever was necessary to bail out the financial industry. It spent $85 billion to keep AIG out of bankruptcy; allowed Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to convert from investment banks into more traditional commercial bank holding companies, operating under far stricter Government supervision; encouraged Bank of America to purchase Merrill Lynch, and stood ready to support the entire mutual fund industry. Realizing that the crisis had crossed global lines, the U.S. added hundreds of billions to its swap lines to aid the European Central Bank and foreign central banks.
At the end of September, with hat in hand, Paulson crawled up to Congress nearly begging for a $700 billion bailout fund. Congress initially balked -- and this action sent the Dow further down -- before approving on Oct. 3 an amended bill known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
The stock market showed what it thought of this Act -- it fell 18 percent the following week. The crisis continued to spread internationally. Iceland essentially lost its banking sector. The United Kingdom essentially forced HBOS, the U.K.'s largest mortgage lender, into the Lloyds TSB Group and nationalized Bradford & Bingley, another big mortgage lender. Governments in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, took similar actions to save their own over-leveraged and undercapitalized banks. The Lehman bankruptcy nearly wiped out Norway's government pension fund.

To put everything into its proper context, I am reproducing the beginning of Chapter 33 "Wall Street Coup de Etat, and Banker False Flags Against America" of my Trilogy. Here, I explain how Goldman Sachs bullied the U.S. Congress and "pulled the trigger" on Lehman Brothers.
Significantly, Max Keiser, who I reproduce below, told Alex Jones that a year before the Oct 2008 collapse of Iceland, he met some Goldman Sachs executives in a bar in Iceland who told him that they were planning on deliberately taking down the Icelandic economy in about a year. (See the 22 April 2010 Alex Jones 3rd hour interview with Bill Murphy of GATA, about 40% through this interview, where Jones recounts this anecdote. Jones also described how Goldman Sachs deliberately helped certain Greek government officials hide their nation's true indebtedness to get into the EU. In April 2010 Goldman Sachs was finally brought under U.S. federal charges):

In October 2008 America’s central bank –the Federal Reserve or “Fed”—and closely allied top Wall Street investment banking houses made a shocking display of arrogance. They dictated a massive cash infusion of $700 billion from Congress.
A year later "the Hidden Hand" behind Wall Street and the Federal Reserve made a more subtle but no less shocking show of arrogance. Despite the fact that Congressman Ron Paul finally put together a Congressional majority to support making a preliminary audit of the Fed --which has never been seriously audited since its founding in 1913 --this bill nevertheless ran into a brick wall.
Getting back to the October 2008 shakedown, French 24 TV's show "Face-Off; "Wall Street: Has It Learned Its Lesson?" interviewed independent analyst Max Keiser about this shocking event:

Interviewer: Max, if I could start with you. What is it about Goldman Sachs. How does it manage to turn figures around like that?
Max Keiser: Well, Goldman Sachs are scum. I mean that is the bottom line. They have basically coopted the U.S. Government. They have coopted the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve functionality. They have coopted the Obama administration. Barack Obama dances, you know, to Goldman Sachs. And they are really crooked and abominable in what they have done. Remember Hank Paulson held Congress hostage. Took them in the back room and said, "Give us $700 billion dollars or we are going to crash this market. He is an arsonist. He is an outlaw. And yet he is given praise --"
Interviewer: He is Treasurer and former CEO at Goldman Sachs--
Keiser: Sure, but if you go down the list they are all Goldman Sachs scum, whether it is Hank Paulson [or] Geitner who has very close ties to Goldman Sachs, and of course all these banking bonuses are paid out to all their cronies, who are Goldman Sachs scum, and America for some reason has allowed this coup de etat to take place. This silent coup de etat where Goldman Sachs and their friends now control the U.S. Government and they are manipulating prices....


Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs story (Part 1 of 2). See also Part 2.

Leading investment banks had been in very serious trouble for many years prior to October 2008 due to a variety of factors, to include the extreme amount of debt accumulating throughout most sectors of the U.S. economy. The Federal Reserve had been following a longstanding strategy of reinflating asset bubbles to stave off an asset deflation and massive recessions, and now the housing bubble had run its course. The "powers that be" decided that someone had to be thrown to the wolves. This go around, "Jewish lightning" would just happen to strike the Jewish-founded investment banking firm with the Jewish name of Lehman Brothers on the highly Kabbalistic date of September 11th. (Interestingly enough, a report surfaced that Lehman transferred $400 billion to Israel just before the unlucky date. This merits additional investigation).


BBC: The Fall of Lehman Brothers P1, YouTube caption: "On September 15, 2008, the firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection following the massive exodus of most of its clients, drastic losses in its stock, and devaluation of its assets by credit rating agencies. The filing marked the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history..." A fascinating look at the personalities and values behind Lehman Brothers and Fed-Wall Street crisis management groups --who leveraged their balance sheets 20-40 times in a housing bubble. Part 4 documents the episode where the British government, combined with the U.S. Fed, blocked the rescue of Lehman, creating a `financial crash 9/11' that would later be used to suck trillions of dollars in bailout money from the U.S. taxpayer. See the complete series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6. See also the sequel "Back From the Brink" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

According to the above documentary The Fall of Lehman Brothers, this was the largest bankruptcy in history, ten times bigger than Enron. The 7 Sept 2009 article "Economic 9-11: Did Lehman Brothers Fail or Was It Pushed?" by Ellen Brown describes the 9-11 "bombing" that took place:

A year after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, questions still swirl around its collapse. Lawrence MacDonald, whose book A Colossal Failure of Common Sense came out in July 2009, maintains that the bank was not in substantially worse shape than other major Wall Street banks. He says Lehman was just “put to sleep. They put the pillow over the face of Lehman Brothers and they put her to sleep.” The question is, why?
...Although Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Monday, September 15, 2008, it was actually “bombed” on September 11, when the biggest one-day drop in its stock and highest trading volume occurred before bankruptcy. Lehman CEO Richard Fuld maintained that the 158 year old bank was brought down by unsubstantiated rumors and illegal naked short selling. Although short selling (selling shares you don’t own) is legal, the short seller is required to have shares lined up to borrow and replace to cover the sale. Failure to buy the shares back in the next three trading days is called a “fail to deliver.” Christopher Cox, who was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2008, said in a July 2009 article that naked short selling “can allow manipulators to force prices down far lower than would be possible in legitimate short-selling conditions.” By September 11, 2008, according to the SEC, as many as 32.8 million Lehman shares had been sold and not delivered – a 57-fold increase over the peak of the prior year. For a very large company like Lehman, with plenty of “float” (available shares for trading), this unprecedented number was highly suspicious and warranted serious investigation. But the SEC, which was criticized for failing to follow up even on tips that Bernie Madoff’s business was a ponzi scheme, has yet to announce the results of any investigation.
...If Lehman was indeed sacrificed, who pushed it and to what end? Some critics point to Henry Paulson and his cronies at Goldman Sachs, Lehman’s arch rival. Goldman certainly came out on top after Lehman’s demise, but there are other possibilities as well, involving more global players. The month after Lehman collapsed, Gordon Brown and the EU leaders called for using the financial crisis as an opportunity to radically enhance the regulatory power of global institutions. Brown spoke of “a new global financial order,” echoing the “new world order” referred to by globalist banker David Rockefeller when he said in 1994: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order.”
...In April 2009, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling hosted the G20 summit in London, which focused on the financial crisis. A global currency issue was approved, and an international Financial Stability Board was agreed to as global regulator, to be based in the controversial Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. The international bankers who caused the financial crisis are indeed capitalizing on it, consolidating their power in “a new global financial order” that gives them top-down global control.

In her article "Economic 9-11: Did Lehman Brothers Fail or Was It Pushed?," Ellen Brown makes some other very important points. The fall of Lehman was a "controlled financial demolition" that resulted from the deliberate dithering of Alistair Darling, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, Ms. Brown claims that Darling also engineered the "controlled financial demolition" of another important financial institution on 9-11 of the prior year, namely a major British firm called Northern Rock.

...Why was Bear Stearns saved from bankruptcy but Lehman Brothers was not? How could the decision makers not realize the dire consequences of letting Lehman go down?
One possible explanation is that they actually thought the bank would be bought out at the last minute, just as Bear Stearns was. In both cases, the parties worked feverishly over the weekend after the stock’s collapse to try to negotiate a deal. For Bear Stearns, the negotiations succeeded, with the help of the New York Federal Reserve, which provided the loan used by JPMorgan Chase to complete the deal. With Lehman, however, the interested buyer was British, and the help that was needed was from the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling. The weekend after the September 11 stock collapse, intense negotiations were pursued with Barclays Bank, which was prepared to underwrite Lehman’s debts; but it needed a waiver from British regulators of a rule requiring shareholder approval. Negotiations continued until the market was getting ready to open in Japan on Sunday, but UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling would not give the necessary waiver. He said something to the effect that he did not want to infect Britain with America’s cancer. The sentiment was understandable, but the question was, why did he wait until it was too late for the Treasury or the Federal Reserve to move in with other arrangements?
The issue takes on more significance in light of the fact that Chancellor Darling played a similar role in another 9-11 collapse the previous year. On September 11, 2007, frantic customers were lining up outside Northern Rock, the UK’s fifth largest mortgage lender, in the first British bank run in 141 years. The bank’s shares plunged 31% in a single day. Like the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the U.S., the bankruptcy of Northern Rock changed the rules of the game. Britain’s major banks too would now be saved at any cost, in order to avoid the loss of customer confidence, panic and bank runs that could precipitate a 1929-style market crash.
With Northern Rock, as with Lehman Brothers, Alistair Darling could have saved the day but backed down. Northern Rock had a willing buyer, Lloyds TSB; but the buyer needed a loan from the Bank of England, which the Bank’s Governor, Mervyn King, had denied. Darling was advised by his staff to overrule the Governor and grant the loan, but this would have cost political capital for UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had been widely lauded for giving the Bank of England its independence in 1997.

By now the reader should be getting the impression that leverage problems are vastly broadly, deeper, and more systemic in the global financial system than anything to do with just Lehman Brothers and Iceland.
Based upon the blackmail of Congress in October 2008, combined with the subsequent "Stimulus Bills" and literally tens of trillions of dollars drained from the U.S. taxpayer in following years, the collapse of Lehman and bankruptcy of Iceland was engineered as a highly visible collapse to shock the U.S. public into bailing out the banking sector.
Similarly, the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and attack on the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 was used to justify the expenditure of trillions of dollars on the operations of America's military industrial complex and Israel in the Middle East. According to Paul Joseph Watson in his article "Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars $80,000 for every American," 30 July 2009,

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.
The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.
The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.

For the sake of intellectual completeness, there is a whole dimension of ethnic nationalist political analysis that needs to be superimposed on top of all of this in order for the reader to fully appreciate the ironies and tragedy unfolding here. Let me at least provide a brief overview here, before I provide more details in the nationalist analysis section later.
The Nordic countries produce more technological innovation per capita than most other countries or peoples on the planet. The largely Nordic-WASP populations of American and Britain led the industrial revolution of the 19th century. More than most other peoples, Nordics have the innate capacity to successfully execute long term industrial development plans.
While the path of industrialization is an arduous road demanding considerable discipline, in the long run it is the best road to raise productivity and living standards. As Eamonn Fingleton explains in Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the key to Future Prosperity, only the industrialization process has the capability to infinitely scale up productivity and output of real goods for a society. In contrast, financial industries can easily degenerate into paper-swapping casinos where ownership changes, but nothing useful ever gets created.
During the September-October 2008 shakeout, Lehman Brothers and Iceland found themselves packed inside the proverbial "Lifeboat Ethics" paradigm alongside other high rolling globalist financiers as storm waves were rising. Lehman Brothers and Iceland obviously got thrown overboard, whereas the "better connected" such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Barclay's and other City of London favorites were allowed to stay on board. According to Paul Watson of, the "in crowd" has received life support to the tune of $24 trillion.
The great tragedy for Iceland is that it never had to be inside this international financial services "lifeboat" in the first place. It could have instead followed a nationalist policy of developing hard industries first and stockpiling resources to help insulate itself from international financial storms rather than sail right into the middle of them.


Iceland President Accuses England, Holland of Financial Bullying. Post Feb 1, 2010, caption: "Iceland's president accused the United Kingdom and the Netherlands on Friday of financially bullying his country. Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said the two countries had been using their influence within the International Monetary Fund to stop it lending Iceland billions of dollars needed to rebuild the country's debt-ridden economy. We are being bullied. The British and the Dutch are using their influence within the IMF to prevent the IMF program from going forward, Grimsson told CNNs Richard Quest."

At the beginning of his 29 Jan 2010 interview by CNN's Richard Quest (above), Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, the President of Iceland, explained how Iceland got thrown off the life boat by the City of London gang in October 2008:

President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson: ...[Nothing makes me] more profoundly disappointed and sad that the government of this enlightened country [the UK] should in October 2008 decide on two things; one was to employ the terrorist legislation which was created to defend against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, put my country, their government, and the entire system on the official web site, the British government web site, side by side with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And the second thing was that Gordon Brown, in October, and Alistair Darling, went on global television, including CNN, and stated that Iceland was a bankrupt country, which was utter nonsense at its best, financial terrorism on their part at its worst. And this meant that companies all over the world who had had dealings with Iceland closed their operations down so that the British damaged our economy to a greater extent than otherwise would have been the case.
Richard Quest: So why not simply say, "Your banks would not reimburse if it was elsewhere, our banks --everyone knew the risks-- we are not paying, good morning, on you go."
Grimsson: Well there are a number of people in my country who are saying exactly that.
Quest: Why don't you do that?
Grimsson: We are saying that ordinary people, taxpayers, should not be put in a position --
Quest: Iceland is being bullied at the moment--
Grimsson: Of course we are being bullied. Of course. The British and the Dutch are using their influence within the IMF to prevent the IMF program from going forward. So we have a situation where a small nation is in fact ready to shoulder part of this burden, but does not want to be put in a corner where the very survival of its economy in the next ten years would be at stake.

We obtain another important Icelandic insider's viewpoint from the 15 Aug 2009 New York Times book review titled "The Little Economy That Couldn't" by Harry Hurt III, New York Times book about a book titled “Why Iceland? How One of the World’s Smallest Countries Became the Meltdown’s Biggest Casualty” by Asgeir Jonsson. One gets the sense that Wall Street banking houses enticed Icelanders to leverage themselves with aggressive overseas expansion. Knowing that Iceland's central bank was inadequate to bail them out in the event of a major financial storm, they misled David Oddsson and other Icelandic leaders to believe that the UK, Netherlands, and U.S. central banks would always be available as a backstop. In other words, first it was "We are your staunch longstanding NATO allies and fellow Western defenders of democracy, don't you know." Then when the storm hit, they changed the implied rules of the game, and it was "Iceland who?"

Mr. Jonsson says Iceland’s plunge was not caused by criminality or bad luck, and he makes his case with a store of insider knowledge. A native Icelander and the author of several books about Icelandic history and economics, he is head of research and chief economist at Kaupthing Bank, which as the largest bank in Iceland was a central figure in the crisis...
...In order to grow, Kaupthing bankers had to find opportunities overseas. Iceland’s central bank didn’t have the regulatory authority of the Federal Reserve of the United States. And lacking a “lender of last resort,” Mr. Jonsson says, Icelandic banks had to rely on international wholesale credit markets for financing.
Before everything fell apart, Kaupthing and rival institutions like Landsbanki and Glitnir built a financial empire worth — at least on paper — 10 times their country’s gross domestic product. The wealth of the average Icelandic family also increased.
In October 2008, just days after the fall of Lehman Brothers, the Icelandic house of cards toppled. The collapse was caused by a sudden loss of confidence by foreign financial institutions and hedge funds. Investors stampeded to sell their stakes and/or short the Icelandic krona.
Mr. Jonsson says the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England refused to rescue the Icelandic banks with emergency loans. Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki went into receivership, many nonbank Icelandic companies were effectively bankrupted and thousands of average citizens lost their life savings...
The humiliated Icelandic government ultimately accepted a $6 billion bailout package from the International Monetary Fund.
According to Mr. Jonsson, about 95 percent of the Icelandic banking system, including his employer, Kaupthing, is now under state control. ...

"The Isle That Rattled the World." by Charles Forelle, Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2008 shows us step by step how the City of London and U.S. stood back and passively allowed Iceland to slowly suffocate as it tried to manage its way through a short term liquidity squeeze to avert disaster.

...In a matter of just days starting in late September, Iceland's entire banking system failed. This account of the final days is based on documents and interviews with a dozen or so people close to the banks and the government.
Inside Glitnir's headquarters in mid-September, CEO Lárus Welding and his deputies faced a problem: The bank had issued bonds five years earlier, to pay for its expansion, that were now coming due. Glitnir had to make a payment of €600 million on Oct. 15.
Glitnir feared it didn't have the cash...
...The mid-September collapse of Lehman Brothers in New York had panicked financial firms world-wide -- bringing lending between banks to a standstill. Given Glitnir's acute need for a loan, that was very bad news.
Glitnir hoped Bayerische Landesbank would let it be late with a €150-million payment on a loan, freeing up some cash for the bond repayment. No dice. On Sept. 24, the Germans asked to be paid on time.
Mr. Welding phoned Glitnir's chairman, Thorsteinn Már Baldvinsson. "This has not been a good day," he said.
Iceland was beginning to be cut down to size.
The Krona Crumbles
Mr. Haarde, the prime minister, spent Sept. 24 in New York City at the United Nations General Assembly. The talk there was of the financial crisis then laying waste to Wall Street. Yet while Lehman Brothers had just gone bankrupt, Europe hadn't yet felt the full force.
The Icelandic delegation headed across town to Nasdaq headquarters, where Mr. Haarde, smiling for the photo op, rang the closing bell.
Back in Reykjavik, however, Iceland's own Glitnir bank was flirting with disaster. With Mr. Haarde out of town, Messrs. Welding and Baldvinsson turned for help to Mr. Oddsson, the former prime minister.
In 2005, Mr. Oddsson had moved across town to another position of power: chairman of the central bank's board of governors. The Glitnir men said they could need between €500 million and €600 million.
Mr. Oddsson didn't commit. "Let's keep in touch," he said, according to a person familiar with the matter.
There was a problem: Iceland's central bank -- which is supposed to act as a lender of last resort when banks get into a bind -- hadn't stockpiled very many euros to lend. By the middle of this year, it held just €2 billion in foreign-currency reserves. By contrast, Iceland had more than $70 billion (€49.9 billion) in debts to foreign banks.
It had plenty of kronur. But nobody wanted those...
...The evening of Sunday, Sept. 28, Mr. Oddsson summoned the top Glitnir officials. As Messrs. Welding and Baldvinsson arrived at the central-bank headquarters to learn Glitnir's fate, Mr. Welding turned to his colleague. "Do you realize," he said, "It's over."
Mr. Oddsson said the government would be willing to take a 75% stake in Glitnir for €600 million.
Monday morning, when the deal was announced, bank shares collapsed. Rating agencies knocked down the debt ratings of Glitnir, Iceland's other banks, and Iceland itself. The krona dropped like a stone.
Britons Take a Hit
...The bad news about Iceland had startled many Brits with money in Landsbanki's Icesave accounts. That weekend, they withdrew some £200 million.
Alarmed, British banking authorities told Landsbanki it had until Monday afternoon to replenish the London branch with about the same amount.
The UK Financial Services Authority declined to discuss the Icesave sequence of events...
Brief Midnight Hope
Around midnight on Sunday, there was a burst of hope. Mr. Haarde told a small crowd gathered in the lobby of Iceland's Parliament building about a new plan taking shape: Iceland's pension funds would sell some overseas investments to raise foreign currency, then let the government buy the foreign currency for kronur.
By Monday morning, that idea was dead. The pension funds weren't eager to sell assets at fire-sale prices into a global crisis.
Iceland had run out of moves.
Monday afternoon, a weary-looking Mr. Haarde addressed his countrymen. He warned that the banks' grave troubles threatened the whole island. "The Icelandic economy, in the worst case, could be sucked with the banks into the whirlpool," he announced on television.
The solution: Iceland would seize the banks. That evening, Parliament passed a new law enabling this to happen.
The next morning, Tuesday, Oct. 7, Landsbanki was nationalized. Iceland's depositors would be protected from losses, the government said.
In the U.K., banking authorities didn't like the sound of that. British depositors had billions of pounds in Icesave -- and no one was saying anything about protecting them.
In a heated phone call, British Treasury chief Alistair Darling asked Iceland's finance minister if British depositors were getting left out in the cold. "Do I understand that you guarantee the deposits of Icelandic depositors?" Mr. Darling asked, according to a transcript published in the Icelandic press.
"Yes," replied Arní Mathiesen.
"But not the branches outside Iceland?" Mr. Darling asked.
"No," Mr. Mathiesen said, not beyond the €20,000 minimum prescribed by European regulations. Later in the call, Mr. Mathiesen said Iceland probably didn't even have enough money to meet the €20,000 minimum.
"Well," said Mr. Darling, "that is a terrible position to be in."
Mr. Darling's office didn't respond to a request for comment. In public remarks, he has recounted a version of the call that is consistent with the transcript. Mr. Mathiesen couldn't be reached.
Despite the Landsbanki debacle, executives at Kaupthing remained hopeful about survival. Kaupthing hadn't seen massive outflows from its own British deposit service (which, luckily, didn't have "Ice" in its name). And Iceland's government had agreed to give Kaupthing the €500-million loan it needed.
Working late Tuesday at the bank's headquarters -- an airy glass building with a waterfall in the atrium -- they hammered out a proposal to take over Glitnir and sell its foreign assets. Thus, two of Iceland's three banks would pull through.
Early Wednesday morning, Kaupthing's chairman was working with his bankers to try to sell some UK assets, when bad tidings flashed across his TV screen: British authorities, worried about the solvency of Kaupthing's U.K. subsidiary, had seized its assets and transferred them to the Dutch bank ING.
The seizure would trigger a cascade of defaults for Kaupthing, blows it simply couldn't survive.
The next morning, Iceland's government took over what was left of Kaupthing. Glitnir, too, was eventually brought under government control.
In Iceland, the reaction has been shame and anger. Popular targets are British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Mr. Darling, blamed for precipitating Kaupthing's collapse. They are also reviled for using an anti-terror law to seize other Icelandic assets. Also attracting a helping of blame is Mr. Oddsson.
His spokesman declined several requests for comment.
In a brief telephone interview in October, Mr. Oddsson said Iceland's foreign-currency reserves per capita were greater than most other countries. And in a spirited October interview on Icelandic television, he said it was the banks that should have been made smaller, not the currency reserves larger.
In a November speech to an Icelandic business gathering, Mr. Oddsson rejected blame for the crisis, saying the central bank had limited supervisory authority over banks, and that he had, in fact, warned of the banks' profligacy.
Blaming Mr. Oddsson is "totally unjustified," says his friend Mr. Gissurarson, also a member of the central bank's supervisory board." The currency crisis was brought about by Gordon Brown," he says. When the U.K. seized Kaupthing's assets, that ended Iceland's best hope keep that institution alive itself.
Mr. Brown has vigorously defended Britain's moves, saying they were necessary to protect British savers after Iceland signaled it would back local depositors but not foreigners....


"Screenshot from HM-Treasury Website of Current Regimes subject to Financial Sanctions from Tuesday 21st October 2008" provided by the Prison Planet Forum posting "NWO puppet Gordon Brown invoked "anti-terror" law vs. Icelanders" on February 09, 2010.

Banner from the web site Icelanders Are Not Terrorists

The Prison Planet Forum posting "NWO puppet Gordon Brown invoked "anti-terror" law vs. Icelanders," February 9, 2010, explained how the British government added insult to injury by adding Icelanders to a list of "terrorists," but then later backed away from this heavy-handed move:

On Wednesday October 8th, the British Government invoked the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 against the Icelandic bank Landsbanki, the Central Bank of Iceland and the Government of Iceland in the United Kingdom. This action was in effect directed against the people of Iceland.
As a result of this action, Landsbanki was placed on a list of regimes subjected to financial sanction by the British government, joining Al-Qaida, the Taliban, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and 10 other organisations or countries known for political unrest or oppressive dictatorships.
On Tuesday evening 21st October, the Landsbanki bank was still on the list of financially sanctioned regimes. The “Icelanders are not terrorists” campaign was launched early on Wednesday morning 22nd October. In less than three days, more than 45,000 individuals added their names to the campaign’s petition against the British government’s action. This amounts to 15% of the entire population of Iceland.
Curiously, at about 4pm on the same day the campaign was launched, the HM Treasury updated its website, moving Landsbanki into a curious new category of regimes subjected to financial sanctions. These changes to the Treasury website are merely cosmetic. The financial transactions of Icelandic companies are still effectively frozen in the United Kingdom and in most other places of the world, primarily as a result of the actions of Prime Minister Brown and Chancellor Darling.
These changes raise two very important issues:

• By making these changes, the British government is effectively admitting that it has for two weeks wrongly defined Icelanders as terrorists.
• If the British government now states that these measures have nothing to do with terrorism, why was the Anti-terrorist legislation invoked at all?

The fight to clear the name of Icelanders will go on until the British government repeals the invocation of the Anti-terrorism Act in order to help restore the world’s trust in the people of Iceland and its businesses.



Forward to Part 2, Act 5

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.