Why doesn’t the Greek Government stop the corruption?: PM Papandreou is a Bilderberg member, that’s why!

Of course PM of Greece Papandreou is a Bilderberg member

The other day we mentioned that corrupt bankers and industry meeting corrupt government is a toxic recipe for disaster. And, it is also the best way to ensure the global scam carries on, and on, and on.

Only a few months ago, at Copenhagen, Greece’s PM George Papandreou was at the conference saying he was there to support the stoppage of climate change. Perhaps Mr. Papandreou has the answer for tsunamis as they are approaching a shore too. No, the real reason for his support is his presence at Bilderberg. Sold out is more the reason. Climate change – please!

Max Keiser said it right when he advised Greece to get rid of their corrupt government, and they would have a chance to tell the bankers where they can place their bonds.

And Bob Chapman, appearing on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, made it very clear – Greece does not stand a chance when the PM in Greece is a Bilderberger.

There are common denominators when a Bilderberger controls a country. They all support climate change taxation, abortion, big government, austerity measures, heavy taxation and bailouts of the very investment banks that create the economic uncertainties.

Isn’t it strange that the PM of Greece is interested in taxing “climate change” as his country burns?

Where is the priority?

Perhaps Papandreou sees his country as one that will gain as a “poor country” when bailed out by the global governance he strongly supports, as evidenced by his words for Copenhagen:

“This is global governance in the making. But we must agree, and agree to a binding commitment.”

He also admitted he was not there only as Prime Minister of Greece:

“The Socialist International, which I also represent here, has proposed, among other measures, funding through an international carbon tax, green bonds or transaction taxes, transforming foreign debt into equal funds to be used by poor countries for climate change adaptation.”

Papandreou attended the Bilderberg conferences of 1995, 1998, 2000, 2004 and 2005. So it may not come as any surprise that the Papandreou calls for global governance to “stop climate change”- which is of course as absurd as calling for the planet to stop turning. It’s interesting to note here that earlier this year Papandreou authored an article for TheNation titled ‘The Challenge of Global Governance” in which he openly stated: “While I am pleasantly surprised that socialism is back in vogue, I am also mindful that it must be reinvented, too.”

Interestingly, Papandreou wrote the piece for the Nation in April 2009, just a few months before becoming PM. Interesting, because the writing sounds more like those opposed to the Bilderberg agenda than for it. Could these words have been a smokescreen?:

Yet many of the measures taken in both the United States and Europe to bail out failed banks and shore up ailing industries seem designed to perpetuate a global financial system that is both politically corrupt and morally bankrupt. Fixated on saving the banks, governments are paying little attention to the people who are losing their homes and jobs, their savings and their pensions, as a result of financial decisions beyond their control. The failure of governments to enforce effective regulation of the corporate giants and banking elites has undermined the integrity of our democracies. No wonder taxpayers feel outraged: they’ve inherited trillions of dollars of bad debt, while bankers walk away with millions of dollars of personal wealth.

This was really written by George P? Offer the man the PM spot and what changed? Fishy, no?

Perhaps someone had better read his article back to him – now would be a good time!

Can George Papandreou see the fire in his own country? And, more importantly, has this changed his priorities?

Sadly, the answer is likely no on both counts. No, because he is a puppet leader for the global elite.

It’s time for Greece to peacefully take control of their government, and get rid of the corrupt politicians put in place to effect the global agenda.

And, other countries in Europe are soon to follow – UK, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

The blip in the stock market that saw the Dow plunge 1000 points, before the U.S. government prop team came in the buoy the markets are a sign of how easily things can be manipulated.

Advertisements

One response to “Why doesn’t the Greek Government stop the corruption?: PM Papandreou is a Bilderberg member, that’s why!

  1. The Life and Times of a Conundrum
    Terry Kleemann 2010

    Usury, or the lending of money for pecuniary gains, through the charging of interest, has, and in some contemporary doctrines, been seen as unlawful, and/or imoral. The rationale for these stated views in texts such as the Tora, Koran, Bible, Theravaada and Mahaayaana traditions hold to a central idea that activity, other than to serve humanity, and not exploit it, is to the detriment of the self, and of the less fortunate. Notwithstanding ancient belief and philosophical belief structures, the contemporary reality is that global economics is almost entirely based on usury.

    Fractal Lending is a little known reality, which in large part, has escalated out of technological capacity in the banking system. In brief, fractal lending is the financial process of creating debit and credit transitions, based on the promissory obligation to repay the debt. This has all taken place without any physical money changing hands. As a result, banks are creating money out of nothing. Whilst this may seem fanciful, consider the following quotes

    Give me the right to print money and I care not
    who makes the laws. Amsel Rothschild

    He who controls the money streams rules. Amsel
    Rothschild.

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New
    York Times, Time Magazine and other great
    publications whose directors have attended our
    meetings and respected their promises of
    discretion for almost forty years. It would have
    been impossible for us to develop our plan for the
    world if we had been subjected to the lights of
    publicity during those years. But, the world is now
    more sophisticated and prepared to march
    towards a world government. The supranational
    sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world
    bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination
    practiced in past centuries.” David
    Rockefeller 1991.

    The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. – Galbraith

    This may sound rather conspiratorial, but the truth about these practices has been bourn out through the many collapses in the financial sector ever since we embarked on the practice of exchange. With each collapse there have been wider implications occurring on a greater scale, stretching across a greater number of international financial sectors, and above all, occurring on a decreasing time span between each collapse. This is the result of speculative greed, through the feverish creation of debt. It is incorrect to call these collapses, “a credit crisis”, they are “a debt crisis”, where the toxicity and level of debt reaches that critical where the debt is no longer be serviceable, and/or the demand for debt exceeds the supply of credit to justify the creation of addition debt, and debt products.

    What is to come, and this is not intended as a prophesy of doom, but a case of projecting forward the concatenation of the structures of previous events. This natural corollary makes it relatively easy to project and predict, the occurrence and severity of subsequent financial collapses. Whilst the financial carnage becomes greater, the recovery time is shortened, due to the fact there are fewer front-end portals, left to provide a market, more willing than ever, to purchases attractive debt products, to minimize the impact of the financial collapse, and the essential intervention of politically controlled treasury intervention, to avert the exposure of the true nature of the course of the collapse.

    Therefore, financial markets reach a point where fractal lending exceeds actual physical working capital within an economic environment, to such an extent, and with such product complexity, due to the process of creating debt products, to falsify economic growth, that the economic structure begins to feed the cash-flow cycle with ever increasing high risk debt, and thus the sensitivity to failures to service debt goes critical.

    There is risk associated with any transaction, and the inevitable realization of the risk, even the slightest event in highly geared environment, is sufficient to cause almost instant collapse. Economic environments operate in the same way a small business dose. When debt passes the point were the debt can be serviced, and/or liabilities exceed assets, one failure to meet tax obligations, pay a creditor, meet payroll costs, or to deliver on services, can be sufficient to bring about almost instant collapse.

    Therefore, there is a point where a global collapse of the financial sector must occur, as a result of interconnected financial markets, debt and trade relationships, political instability, and the increasing inability of political entities to govern. There is growing global evidence that these structures, in particular the later, are coming to fruition. Examples are:

    · Where there is no clear mandate to govern in democratic economies
    · Where non-democratic economies are sustained for longer
    · Transition from depression to prosperity requires more debt input into the financial sector to create to illusion of recovery
    · Increasing levels of poverty, for a growing number of people becomes evident, although the fact is ignored, or at least inconvenient to acknowledge, and increasingly unprofitable to reconcile.
    · Increasing proliferation of debt becomes the currency within an economy

    Whilst politocracies like to take the credit for fostering a prosperous economy, they reject liability for a failing economy. The reason for this lies in the fact that, it is politically prudent, and that the financial sector controls the economy, not the politocracy. The financial sector is quite happy to sit back and not be seen as the driving force directing the economy. To do otherwise would attract scrutiny, exposure, culpability and responsibility. This would expose the public to the realization that the financial sector gets away with it’s unbridled control, because politocracies allow and support it to do so.

    The setting of unreasonable fees, and the, retrospective increase in interest rates, regardless of banks already high level of profitability, has become an area of some, not unreasonable, even if long-overdue, debate, in the public arena. As with any debate, there are two sides to the argument, and the banks will, without doubt, proffer their side of the debate, for scrutiny, just as should apply to the arguments in this document. Therefore, there are a number of areas which government might debate, with the financial sector, to both reform the financial sector, and provide, at very least, a platform for protection against a future global financial collapse, but, first we must have government empowered to govern, and not politocracy limited to serve the financial sector and beholden to buying votes, simply to maintain power.

    · Fees to meet cost of services would imply that, the services being offered are becoming more complex, and thus costly to provide, or that the provider is inefficient, which would not seem to be bourn out buy healthy profits, or that the provider is simply greedy. Therefore fees might be an area of focus, to regulate, to some extent, the capacity of banks to profit over and above fractal lending.

    · Interest, to recoup the cost of money, has a function unique to the banking industry. Recovery of upward changes to the cost of money, which is in fact the cost of electronically created debt, are applied with greater alacrity than the downward changes, and without any regulated tolerance to respond accordingly.

    · The retrospective transposition of cost of debt. An illustrative concept is the proposition that you might go to a market, and buy an apple for 24 cents, because that is considered by the retailer to be a fare price, given the apple only cost him 12 cents. However, the next day the cost of the apple increases by 2 cents, so the grocer comes to you and charges you another cent. Naturally this principle works for both credit and debit held by the bank, where deposits will earn less interest.

    · Reserves on deposit are another privilege, unique to banks. Reserves, that is the ratio of reserve deposits the bank must lodge with the Reserve Bank, to deposits it holds on account, can vary, sometimes as little as a single digit percentage, yet rarely anywhere near, let alone above, twenty percent. In essence, this is a form of collateral imposed upon the bank. However, when you borrow money from the bank, the level of collateral imposed will be far higher, and upwardly variable, commensurate with the banks assessment of risk, without there being a requirement placed upon the bank, to deposit greater reserves to insure the greater risk.

    · Indemnity from risk of failure is another privilege afforded to banks, which is not afforded to any other industry sector, or individuals. The Federal Treasury underwrites this indemnity, using taxpayer obligations, held by the Federal Treasury. Therefore if a bank fails, it’s liabilities to depositors, are guaranteed, at no cost to the bank, for that guarantee facility. As a borrower, such insurance that your liability will be met, should you find yourself in adversity, is compulsorily enforced by the bank, through equity, an often debt insurance. The debt insurance a borrower has to pay is sold to the borrower by the bank, at a premium over the cost to the bank. The insurance is then underwritten by the banks insurers, leaving the bank with the ability to recover it’s losses, and claim the cost of insurance as an expense, and still legally liquidate its charge over assets secured against the loan.

    Economics, whilst influenced by many variables, operates in two modes, and each mode consists of two ambiguous indicators of debatable veracity. An economy has to either be expanding, or contracting, and within either state, positive or negative inflation will be deemed to be the result of speculative economic activity, and in a more abstract sense, an indicator of economic direction, toward, or away from, one state or another, at a variable rate. Given there is a finite amount of physical money in circulation at any given time, and that economic control agents of physical money, namely treasury, cannot, with any alacrity and direct effect, withdraw, or add, physical money into the economic cycle, which in most cases would be seen as imprudent for them to do so. Economic drivers are fundamentally, confidence, the creation of affluence within influence, and control over manageable poverty.

    Confidence is born out of responses to events likely to impact on the value, and return on speculative greed within financial markets. The greed element is evidenced by the fact that the markets are in for increased value of profit taking, but not in for enduring support for profit creation, or profit corrections. This speculation creates nothing, other than a convenient means to take advantage of upward speculative value, against increased mitigation of risk.

    The banking sector, through debt creation, based on the degree of perceived exposure and tolerance toward adversity and risk, determines the perception of the balance between poverty and affluence, preferring greater poverty to increase demand for debt. The demand for debt is driven by the promotion of consumerism, and consumerism is reported as positive economic activity. Politocracies are entirely dependant on positive perceptions, and given positive perceptions are driven by the financial sector, it is the financial sector that controls the economy, and economic policy, not a politocracy. Therefore, the greater affluence the financial sector has, the greater it’s influence is over the power and control structure within society, which is all based upon the sale of debt.

    Manageable poverty requires that a prudent minority control the greater part of affluence. If this balance were to be inverted, the many would control the few, politics would be held to greater account, and the driving and directing levers of the financial sector would be decreased. Prevention of inversion of the affluence and influence to poverty and dependency ratio requires that:
    · The actual levels of poverty be disguised by the illusion of affluence, through the sale of debt which creates economic activity, and thus the perception of prosperity, with mitigation of risk exposure to capacity of the level of poverty to be able to service the repayment of the debt created.

    Strong economies do not prevail where a strong banking sector does not exist, and democratic government cannot exist where fractal-banking mechanisms are empowered and able to control the mitigation of economic risk and maximize return on risk speculation. This however, does not preclude direct or clandestine financial opportunism and/or exploitation of the situation.

    Solutions to any challenge, are rarely served by intransigence, and are never enduring where integrity in commitment to an agreed solution are devoid of viable partnership. The public disquiet, and political had ringing and gnashing of teeth, is perhaps largely due to fractal banking being the best kept secret. Political angst over how best to pander to voters, without upsetting the very mechanism that allows the political game to be played out, is at the heart of reluctance to undertake financial sector reform. General public frustration through not being told the truth, and having to pay the price for the greed and consumption driven society we have allowed, and actively participated in creating, presents a social dilemma for politicians. No solution will ever satisfy all conditions. Variables within conditions and expected or desired outcomes, whether realistic or fanciful, tend to be beyond political comprehension. Idealism never leads to the ideal, yet without knowing what the ideal might be, we never arrive at the best possible situation, given prevailing circumstances.

    A financial global meltdown is inevitable. Consequently global economic adversity is inevitable. It is only when that inevitability occurs that the opportunity may exist for us to review our financial system, and perhaps move away from fractal banking toward a less greed driven form of financial services. Likewise our consumption driven lifestyle will not change unless we are forced to do so through adversity. Politics will not give way to government where we do not insist upon governance, in order that such a transition can be made. While we await the inevitable, we have to accept the continued ravaging and exploitation of our resources, including natural, health, education, infrastructure, affluence and self-reliance, in that order. Preparation is the best plan for effective endurance against adversity. However, there is little hope for preparation. Preparation is implausible, dew to a lack of political will, absence of government and social consciences,

    Staving off the inevitable, and preparing for it, may therefore be best served through acknowledging our circumstance, being aware of the consequences, and accepting the responsibility lies with each and every one of us. These realizations are unlikely, dew to the fostering of ignorance, and the devolution of education is the best way to evolve ignorance.

    Disquiet surrounding bank fees, charges, responses to interest rate increases, executive salaries, privileged protected against liability and reported financial sector profitability are little more than shouts from the powerless, to those with the power to control any disquiet. The financial sector placates, and the politocracy puffs lukewarm air toward the financial sector whilst sucking the flames of disquiet from the electorate, through the perception of action by the servant against the master.

    Passions can run pretty high when it comes to banks, but it has to be remembered that, like them or not, they are an integral service industry, and driving force behind our economy, even if that force is driving the economy toward a debt-bubble melt down. Even then, we will look to government, and to the banks for support, remedy, and a better-regulated future financial sector. Even if we survive the inevitable, banks, as they currently operate, will not be interested if they cannot drive their existence, and relevancy, through fractal lending. Therefore our relationship with banks is perhaps at best one of love to hate when they don’t help us, and hate to love when they do. Therefore, if there is to be any enduring change, then it most likely only going to come about post a global meltdown of debt, and as a result of personal attitudes to debt and personal savings. The change in attitude may well be bourn out of inverting this paradigm, and lead us to, the ideas of affluence and self-reliance, and government over politics.

    Solutions are never singular, but rather made up of facets. We have to be realistic, that although bank related debt, will bankrupt the world we are not going to act to prevent this unpalatable reality. Our societies work on a subliminal level, as well as a level we can easily see and interact with. There is no great conspiracy about world domination, a global government, a one world bank or currency, or what ever else the boffins of conspiracy dream up. What does exist is our innate ability to identify opportunity for survival, and exploit that opportunity for greed, not need. We don’t educate people about such matters, including economics, fractal lending, money management, consumerism, and resource sustainability, renewability and conservation, because it is easier, cheaper and more convenient not to do so. Perhaps even more important is the fact that those subjects bore us, particularly in a world of technology-based consumerism, where the social networks, small change in the slot for instant entertainment, a hunger for the salacious, and increasing value of trivia, are far more exciting and vigorously promoted.

    So can we blame the banks? Well no. They are simply selling what we want to buy, and creating more of what they need to sell us more of what we want, and who wants to take responsibility for that little lot? We are all too willingly dismissive of our little part in it all, seeing it as someone else’s responsibility to fix, as long as it hurts the banks, and doesn’t effect us in a negative way, such as having less lines of credit to access, so we can consume more. At the end of the day, little will be done. The issues over banks, and what nasty evil global conglomerates they are will always blow over as it has always done before. The noise over fees and so on, are responded to with teasers, and thus the reluctance, and final acquiescence to demands that a grain of wheat be given up from the sack.

    When the financial sector collapses we will blame the banks, and be ready and waiting for the next master of our greed to rise up and serve us, so we might serve at the feast. For an economy to mitigate it’s exposure to a financial crisis, and reduce the impact that crisis will have on the economy, requires some radical changes, to the way our financial services and economy operate. Given the time frame for the next financial crisis, and the time frame for reforms to take place, [the next five to ten years], reform, may at best a slender mitigation, rather than total protection against adversity. However, to do nothing, is to totally expose our economy and society, to the full impacts of the inevitable. The only alternative, which can be given effect with far greater alacrity, and far greater durability and sustainability, is for a vast majority to check the realities of their perceived affluence, and stop playing in the game of fractal lending and debt consumption. Although the later holds the greatest opportunity for delivering us from poverty and dependency, into affluence and self-reliance, whilst being to most powerful, with least exposure to adversity, it is the least likely to eventuate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s