Bazz>>Actually Soneofgloin, that information is probably a lot more than they got of the Financial Stability Board.
The FSB has been setup to seize bank deposits if any of our banks get
into financial trouble. It was setup by the IMF and the G20 countries It was approved by the IMF & G20 and
signed up for Australia by Wayne Swan..<<

That info is worth repeating....thanks Bazz...didn’t know about that one......

Foxy>> As stated earlier - these huge organisations have developed
much more quickly than have the means of applying social
control over them.<<

Most valued Foxy......As the “Inside Job” factually conveys, the ones who ran the scams that stole from the rest of the world became the presidentially decreed regulators. When these shylocks worked in the same financial segment they now regulate, they and their chief puppets reaped BILLIONS in payouts consisting both shareholder and tax payer monies.

But that swindle was a sideline event that paid the underlings like Greenspan and Bernanke, the takeover and merging of the financial segment was the required outcome, and that happened...the big got bigger.

They purchased the rating agecies, the intellectuals, the government regulators, and both Bush and Obama were paid for in full....who paid....not the CEO’s or directors of these financial institutions...but somebody did pay.

Foxy the largest bank on the globe is the Bank for International Settlements, it has about fifty odd privately owned shareholder banks and of those banks there are a handful that own the fifty odd and of that handful there is ONE bank that owns the lot. We are enslaved to one family.

Foxy social control will not come when you have the governments and the mass media controlled by the Banking Cartel behind the companies exposed in the doco. Sad for us....but true.....

Nhoj,>> Both the USA and China would be quite happy to sacrifice Australia if they consider that to be in their interests. By being the servant of both those countries, we become a target for both those countries when they eventually go to war.<<

Exactly right Nhoj, but let’s clarify a salient point while not detracting from your thoughts.

When we talk about a nations willingness to sacrifice we are talking about the administrators (whether democratic elected or not) of those nations willingness to make sacrifices, including their own constituents if need be. The Chinese administration murdered unarmed students in Tiananmen Square and the American administration murdered students at Kent State University in my lifetime.....

My point is that there are no “good guys bad guys.” But the NWO agenda spearheaded by the bought and paid for American administration is patently more corrupt than China. Consider the places that America has sent armies since the Second World War....everywhere, they have fought on every continent....while China has sent troops to two foreign countries, and they share boarders with both.

Bad or worse take your pick.

@chrisgaff1000, and just how do you propose to organize 7 billion people across the planet to revolt? By using the very tool governments uses to detect such action, the Internet? You might like to think that suggestion through a little more.

I've had an idea that amounts to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"... Since it's corporations that will have the rights, government will be the tool to enforce those rights and citizens will be incidental, we can incorporate all our towns and cities and all be directors with equal voting rights within that incorporation. That could re-instate some rights for citizens, as well as provide democracy at a social level. Just a thought.

Cheers.

Dear Chris,

I'm wary of "Revolution," to me it implies violence
and things can get out of hand. However, I am all
for applying political pressure and demostrations
by peaceful means. Take the Vietnam War. It came to
an end largely as a result of the anti-war movement,
a social movement that consisted disproportionately of
young people. When the anti-war movement first
challenged the war it received little support from
politicians or the press and the goals seemed hopeless.
But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift.
In the 1968 presidnetial primaries in the US, an anti-war
candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly
well and President Johnson decided not to run for
re-election. From that point on, political debate on
the war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get
out of it.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources
other than their own determination had changed a national
consensus for war to a national consensus for peace.

Dear SOG,

Thanks for your post.

Much appreciate the information.

Yes Foxy, that's right. But the big difference between the Vietnam war and now, was conscription. The idea of being drafted into a war that people had grown up watching on TV, never understanding why there was a war, was a great motivator for the up and coming young cannon fodder...me included.

But technology in weapons and equipment have advanced so much that wars by the West require much fewer troops, so can be handled by professional soldiers. And since we're always riding on the shirt-tails of America who only picks on underdeveloped countries, the government has been shrewd enough not to reintroduce conscription to create that motivator.

Plus, protesting was our generation's middle name. We rose up from near Victorian conservatism of the 50's, creating the cultural revolution of the 60's. There was lots to protest about. One could even argue that we may have taken it all a bit too far. And there wasn't the PlayStations, X-Boxes, computers or even video players to drone people in front of a screen. There was only one TV per house, domineered by mum and dad, or playing outside, coming in for dinner at news time, seeing the Vietnam War every night.

We have been conditioned differently since then, mainly via access to other technologies, able to isolate ourselves in our rooms, select whatever floats our boat to watch or play. Unpalatable news is no longer thrust upon us, but disinformation and propaganda is. In addition, everyone has their own pet issues today...dolphins, global warming, rising seas, chem-trails, fracking, the impoverished, the wealthy, the NBN, the Illuminati, food prices, energy prices, or are only interested in the latest iPhone, etc, etc, etc. We are divided instead of united. The singers and songwriters of our generation wrote protest songs, and we protested, making heroes of them.

I "Imagine" "the answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

Cheers.

Dear DD,

Yes, you're right times have certainly changed.
However some things don't seem to change.
For millennia,
people have hoped for peace in their time.
Today, as usual, there is not shortage of grand
proposals for peace - such as new defense
devices, or the acceptance of one religion or another,
or even the reform of so-called human nature. Yet
arms races and wars continue as before, sometimes
creating the discouraging ideas that hopes for peace are
too "idealistic."
And indeed, we are likely to be disappointed if we expect
dramatic results in the form of of an immediate end to
war and militarism.

The prospects for peace look much more encouraging, however,
once we recognise that war and peace are really opposite
ends of a continuum, and that movements along this
continuum, in either direction, is the result of social
processes that develop and change over time under the
influence of government policies and popular pressures.

We can see this process in the hostile, intricate dance of
the superpowers as they waver along the continuum between
war and peace - sometimes trending one way, sometimes
another. As we've seen in the past, the policies of both
the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States
have been and are constrained by the knowledge that if
one side pushes the other too far, nuclear war could
result. Consequently, both countries test one another -
but only within the perceived limits of their mutual
tolerance. The superpowers are generally careful to avoid
direct confrontation, and instead participate openly or
covertly in wars in other countries, often
through the use of foreign "proxy" forces, such as
the Cubans in Angola, or the Contras in Nicaragua.

Both countries, it seems, share an unwritten understanding
- essentially, that if a country is already communist-ruled
the Soviet AAUnion (now Russia) will be permitted to
intervene to keep it that way, and if it is already
noncommunist, the US will be permitted to intervene to
maintain the status quo.