More From the Economist: Another Example of Elite EU Misdirection

More From the Economist: Another Example of Elite EU Misdirection

Monday, November 14, 2011 – by Staff Report

Staring into the abyss … The euro crisis might wake Europe up. But more likely, argues Edward Carr, it will lead to compromise and decline. When Britain abandoned the gold standard in 1931, it was not only forsaking a system for managing the currency but also acknowledging that it could no longer bear the mantle of empire. – Economist

Dominant Social Theme: There are many options that the EU has. The best one is to retreat from the abyss.

Free-Market Analysis: This article from the Economist newspaper, one of the leading Anglosphere power elite mouthpieces, is not as it seems and in this article we shall show why. One of the dominant social themes of the elite is centralization, and this article endorses further EU centralization without actually saying so. It seems to give readers an unbiased look at the EU’s prospects but does not.

The whole idea of the EU is to centralize a huge swath of a geographical region that contains numerous cultures and tribes that have traditionally shown antipathy to each other. The elites who created this horror-show have been quite aware that a currency-driven union would collapse. Therefore, the plan was evidently and obviously to use the collapse to further tighten and centralize the union.

But in our view, something has “queered the works” – the Internet and, subsequently, what we have called the Internet Reformation. This has allowed many more people than the elites anticipated to understand the strategy behind the planned obsolescence of the Union.

The move toward global governance has been set back by this understanding – and the subsequent anger – and a campaign has been launched to move the EU toward a greater union. The Economist, positioned as a sophisticated thought magazine is helping to lead the charge. Here’s some more from the article:

Some Europeans would like to put up carefully designed fences around the EU’s still vast and wealthy market. Others, including a growing number of populist politicians, want to turn their nations inward and shut out not just the world but also the elites’ project of European integration. And a few— from among those same elites, mostly—argue that the only means of paying for Europe’s distinctive way of life is not to evade globalisation but to embrace it wholeheartedly.

This is not some abstract philosophical choice. It is a fierce struggle for Europe’s future, being waged in Athens as George Papandreou loses power to a temporary government of national unity, in derelict factories in France and Belgium and in the wasted lives of millions of unemployed young Spaniards. This struggle will set the limits on Europe’s welfare state. It will determine how the unbalanced partnership between Germany and France, and an increasingly detached Britain, will shape the EU. It will define the high politics of Brussels and the low politics of European populism.

A euro-zone central banker confesses that he has lately been thinking about historical catastrophes such as the first world war and wondering how the world blundered into them. “From the middle of a crisis”, he says ominously, “you can see how easy it is to make mistakes.” Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was supposed to banish the competitive devaluations that threatened the single market in the early 1990s. It promised to bind a unified Germany into the EU and pave the way for some sort of political union in Europe.

We can see from the ambivalence of this text that this article is taking an even-handed tone when it is not. The article gives us the impression that options are being evaluated by its writers, but they are not. They are presented pejoratively.

The end of the article provides us with all we need to know. It concludes by stating that the single market is “under threat” as it has been before. The article also quotes Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French former head of the IMF as saying, “If Europe fails, it will suffer from low growth, economic domination and cultural domination.” Perhaps Strauss-Kahn is trying to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the elites by promoting this sort of fear-based meme.

Finally, the article concludes: “Can Europe turn back from the abyss? Only if the core countries will support the rest as they submit themselves to radical political, social and economic reform. Nobody should be under any illusions about how difficult that will be.”

Conclusion: Here the Economist’s final position is revealed by the final paragraph: The “abyss” is disunion. And the core countries must “support the rest” as they attempt “reform.” Of course, reform is IMF austerity and the real result of such reform would be to refine and reinvigorate the EU as the powers-that-be prepare for additional global governance. Just another promotional piece in the apparently endless campaign to create a new world order.

http://thedailybell.com/3233/More-From-the-Economist-Another-Example-of-Elite-EU-Misdirection

Posted by rossbcan on 11/14/11 03:17 PM

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 01:32 PM
“Parasites, if they wish to survive, must NOT KILL THE HOST,”

This is much too simplistic; with the billions of people on earth do you doubt that there will be many willing to work for the psychopaths? They are NOT all on strike, no, that would require that the vast majority were virtuous and principled but this is patently not the case, wouldn’t you agree?

In addition, these nutcases have been stockpiling veritable mountains of food and other niceties, just to provide for any such eventuality. MONEY is no problem whatsoever, remember: they’ve robbed humanity **blind**.😦

And yes, they ARE insane, but unfortunately we will probably not survive long enough to see _their_ ultimate (self)-destruction, something I think they will bring upon themselves but only after they’ve destroyed the Earth, our home. Dammit.

“do you doubt that there will be many willing to work for the psychopaths?”

No, but I do doubt they can or will be productive enough to earn their keep. If you are stupid enough to be a slave, this imposes other limitations.

Login To Reply

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 01:32 PM

Posted by rossbcan on 11/14/11 11:09 AM
“what ‘pushback” you had in mind”

It is happening, and has been happening for a very long time. “Mathematics of Rule”. Parasites, if they wish to survive, must NOT KILL THE HOST, which they are:

Click to view link

so, the question resolves to: are elites so insane as to be suicidal or, will they acknowledge the need for some sort of “quid pro quo”?

“Parasites, if they wish to survive, must NOT KILL THE HOST,”

This is much too simplistic; with the billions of people on earth do you doubt that there will be many willing to work for the psychopaths? They are NOT all on strike, no, that would require that the vast majority were virtuous and principled but this is patently not the case, wouldn’t you agree?

In addition, these nutcases have been stockpiling veritable mountains of food and other niceties, just to provide for any such eventuality. MONEY is no problem whatsoever, remember: they’ve robbed humanity **blind**.😦

And yes, they ARE insane, but unfortunately we will probably not survive long enough to see _their_ ultimate (self)-destruction, something I think they will bring upon themselves but only after they’ve destroyed the Earth, our home. Dammit.

Login To Reply

Posted by Abu Aardvark on 11/14/11 12:34 PM

DB: “These are great. Thanks much.”

—————————

You are welcome. Are you aware, BTW, that there’s something REALLY BIG going on in Germany RIGHT NOW?

“The Brown Army Faction – A Disturbing New Dimension of Far-Right Terror”

Click to view link

Excerpt:

“The greater the mystery, the more outrageous the speculation. There have been persistent rumors that German intelligence agencies once helped the trio escape, or even used Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe as informants, despite vehement and repeated denials by federal and state officials. In a 2001 memo, even police officers with the State Office of Criminal Investigation speculated that Zschäpe at least might have been working as an informant — a charge that, once again, the intelligence agencies vigorously deny.”

Now, make no mistake: “Der Spiegel” was and is the main elite mouthpiece (not only) when it comes to intelligence matters. The above article is, in the best case, damage control, maybe much worse. Hence they “forgot” some important details in their lengthy piece – like the fact – reported 2006 in the prestigious “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” – that one German “Verfassungsschutz”-agent left one of the 10 murder scenes MINUTES before the actual murder:

Click to view link

After the fact was reported, the series of murders stopped.

Also very strange: The biggest-selling, very influential, completely controlled, 100% US/Israel-friendly daily tabloid “Bild” came out yesterday with the headline, “Did Nazi-Killers Get Fake Passports From Intelligence Agency?”

Click to view link

I don’t have any clue, yet, how this whole story will unfold. Maybe it’s the biggest red herring since … well long ago. Maybe it’s GLADIO 2.0 – but where’s the motive when you shoot foreigners and than do everything you can to give the impression, for years, that the murders are NOT racism-related but rather a “mafia/protection money” thing?

I could go on for quite some time. The list of inconsistencies and contradictions is very long already. It stinks to high heaven anyway, and is, I’m afraid, just the beginning.

Login To Reply

Posted by injun1 on 11/14/11 12:19 PM

The IMF- A new Army;

“This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes his own social system on it. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise.”

-Joseph Stalin

Login To Reply

Posted by Abu Aardvark on 11/14/11 11:29 AM

Howdy elves and feedbackers!

Some articles from the weekend which I’d like to share …

“The EU’s architects never meant it to be a democracy” (Telegraph)

Click to view link

“Bernanke Launches an Old Testament Diss Against Ron Paul” (EPJ)

Click to view link

“Intel Source: Israel Behind Deadly Explosion at Iran Missile Base” (TIME)

Click to view link

“NYT Comes Pretty Damn Close to Reporting that Obama and Geithner May Have Known Each Other When They Were Children in Asia” (EPJ)

Click to view link

“Greece turns to Iranian oil as default fears deter trade” (Reuters)

Click to view link

“The Fed Examines the Role of Central Banks in Financial Stability” (EPJ)

Click to view link

Login To Reply

Reply from The Daily Bell
These are great. Thanks much.

Posted by rossbcan on 11/14/11 11:09 AM

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 10:03 AM
@rossbcan

Not to be a party-pooper but. if slave civilizations do not and can not and have not lasted, why did the Dark Ages last for all those many centuries.
———
And you wrote:
“Oh, did I fail to mention that elites and their collective servitude endeavors are DOOMED? The only outstanding question is how much collateral damage we, the people are willing to tolerate before significant and REAL (by actions) pushback occurs.”

I do believe in optimism, but come on, we need to give hard facts their due weight too, no?

Just curious, what ‘pushback” you had in mind – will we “Hate” them to death? This reminds me of the knight in Monty Python… still bragging even as his head is being lopped off. [Sorry.]

“what ‘pushback” you had in mind”

It is happening, and has been happening for a very long time. “Mathematics of Rule”. Parasites, if they wish to survive, must NOT KILL THE HOST, which they are:

Click to view link

so, the question resolves to: are elites so insane as to be suicidal or, will they acknowledge the need for some sort of “quid pro quo”?

Login To Reply

Posted by rossbcan on 11/14/11 11:03 AM

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 10:03 AM
@rossbcan

Not to be a party-pooper but. if slave civilizations do not and can not and have not lasted, why did the Dark Ages last for all those many centuries.
———
And you wrote:
“Oh, did I fail to mention that elites and their collective servitude endeavors are DOOMED? The only outstanding question is how much collateral damage we, the people are willing to tolerate before significant and REAL (by actions) pushback occurs.”

I do believe in optimism, but come on, we need to give hard facts their due weight too, no?

Just curious, what ‘pushback” you had in mind – will we “Hate” them to death? This reminds me of the knight in Monty Python… still bragging even as his head is being lopped off. [Sorry.]

“why did the Dark Ages last for all those many centuries.”

Because the sheeple did not know that there are “better alternatives” and, actually believed that the RC “church” was representing the “will of god” in which some were by divine will, serfs and others, master.

Then, came the Gutenberg press, exposing what the bible ACTUALLY said, proving the priesthood as self-decreed masters and, hypocrites. They were forced to make a major step back and, are still being pushed back.

Now, we have a new “religion”, “scientific progress” and misplaced trust in some who claim to be “scientists” and, entire “professions” (all humanities, economics included) falsely claiming to be reality and scientific oriented.

The internet is rapidly sorting fact from fiction. Reality ALWAYS wins. When dealing with intelligent creatures, the rapidly of reality “winning” is dependent on the penetration of informed choice (unseen hand) acting in civilization.

Once you have seen the truth, there is no going back. Ever:

Click to view link

The number of “one eyed kings” (sovereign individuals) in the “civilization of the blind” is rapidly, near exponentially increasing. They are making choices, to which all others must adapt:

Click to view link

I will avoid the “who is more realistic” debate. The facts stand. History was in different environments, different choices. This is NOW.

Login To Reply

Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 11/14/11 10:17 AM

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 10:03 AM
@rossbcan

Not to be a party-pooper but. if slave civilizations do not and can not and have not lasted, why did the Dark Ages last for all those many centuries.
———
And you wrote:
“Oh, did I fail to mention that elites and their collective servitude endeavors are DOOMED? The only outstanding question is how much collateral damage we, the people are willing to tolerate before significant and REAL (by actions) pushback occurs.”

I do believe in optimism, but come on, we need to give hard facts their due weight too, no?

Just curious, what ‘pushback” you had in mind – will we “Hate” them to death? This reminds me of the knight in Monty Python… still bragging even as his head is being lopped off. [Sorry.]

Wow a realist! Dare I think there may be others?

Login To Reply

Posted by DarbyJie on 11/14/11 10:03 AM

@rossbcan

Not to be a party-pooper but. if slave civilizations do not and can not and have not lasted, why did the Dark Ages last for all those many centuries.
———
And you wrote:
“Oh, did I fail to mention that elites and their collective servitude endeavors are DOOMED? The only outstanding question is how much collateral damage we, the people are willing to tolerate before significant and REAL (by actions) pushback occurs.”

I do believe in optimism, but come on, we need to give hard facts their due weight too, no?

Just curious, what ‘pushback” you had in mind – will we “Hate” them to death? This reminds me of the knight in Monty Python… still bragging even as his head is being lopped off. [Sorry.]

Login To Reply

Posted by rossbcan on 11/14/11 09:35 AM

Of course, the end game is centralization and hierarchical command / control organization whereas the ad-hoc internet both in terms of commerce and people exercising voluntary association is peer to peer, ad-hoc, temporary associations for mutually agreed goals, in an issue by issue basis.

The internet is pregnant with the potential of freedom which the intellectually competent are drinking of, deeply. There can be no going back. Central controllers offer servitude, where we all stand in line, in our assigned places, a tradeoff of security they cannot provide for freedom which they cannot take. And, our slavers are dinosaur “thinkers” seeking the impossible, the general servitude of mankind using hierarchical command / control which cannot possibly function, by the basic laws of reality:

Click to view link

Secondly, in actual fact, the object of command and control once achieved, according to history, collapses whatever civilization (the rules by which we peacefully cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest) is foolish enough to tolerate it, by destroying “MUTUAL self-interest” and, thus, ALL reasons for the productive to be so.

Thirdly, Darwin and Evolution PROVES that when you suppress freedom to choose correctly, you suppress collective survival, dooming civilization:

Click to view link

Oh, did I fail to mention that elites and their collective servitude endeavors are DOOMED? The only outstanding question is how much collateral damage we, the people are willing to tolerate before significant and REAL (by actions) pushback occurs.

FAR RIGHT TERROR..WHEN REF TO GERMANY..

ULTRA FAR RIGHT -THE ONLY DEMOCRACY WHEN IN REF TO ISRAEL..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,797569,00.html

ZOG OF GERMANY- SO WHAT?

3 responses to “More From the Economist: Another Example of Elite EU Misdirection

  1. PROBABLY ISRAELIS DRESSED UP TO LOOK LIKE NAZIS- WON’T BE THE FIRST TIME….DRESSING UP IS SOMETHING KHARZIA JEWS GET OFF ON…

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,797569,00.html

    http://thedailybell.com/3233/More-From-the-Economist-Another-Example-of-Elite-EU-Misdirection

    GOLD STANDARD

    Gold Standard
    There are various kinds of gold standards. The common use of the phrase refers to state-run gold standards, whereby governments themselves declare the standard. Generally, the gold standard, along with the silver standard, were widely used throughout history to back the currencies of the world with a solid material to defend against inflation.

    Many countries had one exception for when their metallic standards would be used, and that exception was during times of war. The United States had a freeze of their bi-metallic standard during the civil war and European powers stopped backing currency during the Napoleonic wars. In the United States the gold standard replaced a bi-metallic standard that used both gold and silver in 1900 with the Gold Standard Act. The United States Congress set a gold standard that had a requirement whereby the Federal Reserve must hold 40% of the value of all US dollars in the country in gold.

    When the Great Depression hit, the US could not expand its monetary supply. The Federal Reserve therefore set a rate at which US dollars could be exchanged for gold by raising the interest rates of the US dollar. This move had the opposite effect; many people and organizations rushed to exchange their US dollars to gold, which caused a high risk of a gold shortage.

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt later set the rate of gold at $59.06 per ounce. In 1933, FDR banned the private ownership of gold and had much of it confiscated, unofficially ending the gold standard in the United States. There are other interpretations of this ban, most of which center around the Fed’s illegal issuance of paper dollars far beyond the Congressionally mandated gold ration. Thus, Roosevelt may have confiscated gold to ensure that the public would not discover the flim-flammery.

    It was only in 1969 that the ban was lifted on private ownership. In 1971, President Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard. The price of gold began to rise and the dollar lost value and has been increasing in value, cyclically, ever since.

    The United States has faced a massive amount of inflation since 1933. Among the causes of this is the removal of the gold standard. Supporters of the free market support the concepts of the gold standard, if for no other reason than simply because it removes the risks that inflatable fiat currency brings. The actions taken in 1933 also make many question whether the federal government acted beyond its bounds by forbidding the private ownership of anything, gold included.

    With the economic crisis of the first decade of the 2000s, it is likely that some sort of gold standard will be re-imposed either by the market itself or voluntarily by countries. The dollar-reserve system is under tremendous pressure with all paper currencies regularly losing value. The situation likely cannot continue. The 21st century may see a renewed gold standard of some sort, privately engaged or imposed by governments.

  2. BRING THE GLASS- STEAGALL ACT BACK…..BROWNSKI REMOVED IT IN THE UK….

    What Was The Glass-Steagall Act?Posted: Jul 16, 2003

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#ixzz1dsZi7trk

    BY REMOVING THIS ACT IT ALLOWED BANKS TO DO WHAT THEY DID…MINISTERS HELPED THE PARASITE TO SUCK MORE BLOOD.

    In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress put their names on what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). This act separated investment and commercial banking activities. At the time, “improper banking activity”, or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors’ money. Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial services firms that can equally compete against each other. We will take a look at why the GSA was established and what led to its final repeal in 1999.

    Reasons for the Act – Commercial Speculation
    Commercial banks were accused of being too speculative in the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing their assets but also because they were buying new issues for resale to the public. Thus, banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound loans were issued to companies in which the bank had invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those same stocks.

    Effects of the Act – Creating Barriers
    Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, was the primary force behind the GSA. Henry Bascom Steagall was a House of Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee. Steagall agreed to support the act with Glass after an amendment was added permitting bank deposit insurance (this was the first time it was allowed).

    As a collective reaction to one of the worst financial crises at the time, the GSA set up a regulatory firewall between commercial and investment bank activities, both of which were curbed and controlled. Banks were given a year to decide on whether they would specialize in commercial or in investment banking. Only 10% of commercial banks’ total income could stem from securities; however, an exception allowed commercial banks to underwrite government-issued bonds. Financial giants at the time such as JP Morgan and Company, which were seen as part of the problem, were directly targeted and forced to cut their services and, hence, a main source of their income. By creating this barrier, the GSA was aiming to prevent the banks’ use of deposits in the case of a failed underwriting job.

    The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the financial community, and it was reported that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

    Building More Walls
    Despite the lax implementation of the GSA by the Federal Reserve Board, which is the regulator of U.S. banks, in 1956, Congress made another decision to regulate the banking sector. In an effort to prevent financial conglomerates from amassing too much power, the new act focused on banks involved in the insurance sector. Congress agreed that bearing the high risks undertaken in underwriting insurance is not good banking practice. Thus, as an extension of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Bank Holding Company Act further separated financial activities by creating a wall between insurance and banking. Even though banks could, and can still can, sell insurance and insurance products, underwriting insurance was forbidden.

    Were the Walls Necessary? – The New Rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
    The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today’s market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves.

    Consequently, to the delight of many in the banking industry (not everyone, however, was happy), in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.

    Conclusion
    Although the barrier between commercial and investment banking aimed to prevent a loss of deposits in the event of investment failures, the reasons for the repeal of the GSA and the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act show that even regulatory attempts for safety can have adverse effects.
    by Reem Heakal

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#ixzz1dsanc7tP

  3. Pingback: A look at our financial system as if it matters.

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