Speculation, Winners, Losers and Odious Debts: Finance Against Economy, 4
So the money hose of moneypulators is necessarily wide open rather permanently, and regardless of the degree of inflation this creates, there’s a facet of this hidden money flood that’s worth pointing out as a pinnacle of the scam: odious debt.
A criminal, a suppressive, imposes the want, or better yet the addicton, for something he has the monopoly of, and the moneypulator does so with the very means of exchange of survival factors in society. I said that whoever is allowed to create purchasing power out of nothing sooner or later will own and destroy everything and everyone, and that’s how it’s done: odious debt.
Odious debt is defined as a legal theory that holds that, analogously to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion, the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation is a debt of the regime, not of the state, and should be repudiated and not enforceable. I would like to emphasise how this is an odd case of common sense, justice, ethics and calling spade a spade in law, which is not commonplace. In fact, quite to the contrary, usually regimes are tools set up by moneypulators for that very purpose of running nations into debt with them so as to seize them and strip them for good.
This definition is a good starting point, in that I think it needs some adjustment, in order to widen its scope and thus carry out its mission of explicitly calling things with their name.
In my opinion, any debt designedly caused by the creditor is odious debt. Any debt caused by the creditor to the purpose of bleeding or seizing the debtor is odious debt. This usually involves putting the debtor in a condition in which he or she has no other choice than getting into debt, therefore that the debtor formally accepted to get into debt “freely” is immaterial. We’re nobody’s fools.