Theory behind mass resignations of banker elite. (elite behind the global curtain, are monkeys too)

I think the mass resignations are exactly for, the same reasons that politicians resign their positions. They get tipped off or paranoid that there is going to be a major investigation into their activities, and the actions of who they work for...so they resign their post to avoid prosecution of corruption, and claim to not know of any wrong doings while they worked there and/or plea the 5th. A certain someone running for president right now; did this a few years ago. Can you guess whom it was? I'll give you a hint; in the animal kingdom it's related to the salamander family and starts with the letter N.

Why do I think this? The resignation loophole works and there are many examples; please see the link: (Known scandals). Place yourself in their position, what would you lose if found guilty of such crimes? Wealth, power, influence, integrity, and trust. But not by your peers, because they feel the same way; that the masses are animals to be controlled and used. But when threatened with losing all of that power; their animal nature kicks in it's flight or fight; and they'd rather take flight and run to protect themselves.

But what then? They do not wish to lose any power they held; so they run things behind the scenes through a puppet, that has been paid off or set up a patsy pawn to take the fall if it comes, leaving themselves safe. The equivalent of "Castling" in chess. It's the same thing that occurred during the Iran/Contra affair. The puppet patsy pawn was O. North, he took all the blame freeing Reagan and Bush of investigation. Bush advanced to office then pardoned North. Please see the link: (Presidential pardon list)

Known scandals:
en.wikipedia.org...

Presidential pardons: en.wikipedia.org...

NOTE: Holding down ctrl then pressing F on your keyboard; brings up a search bar function on web pages to find all occurrences of a name or word entered into it.

It's interesting how the: Known scandal list has grown and grown during successive presidencies to present day; many offenders got off by; resigning/pleading the 5th/denial/ in many cases getting no charges, or a slap on the wrist etc. when most of the crimes easily qualify for treason. Whatever laws that allow, such people to avoid trial and or severe prosecution must be over turned for elected officials, including removal of presidential pardon power.

It is also interesting to sift through all the list of: Presidential pardons and notice how many pardons are for major drug trafficking of coc aine, and heroin. Why would presidents that claim to have family values and morals pardon such people? I believe that the black markets fund government black projects way more than legalization and taxation ever could or would. Just look at the money and power cartels have gained during this "war on drugs" then look at the numbers of dollars suspected to flow into the black market verses how much money intelligence reports estimate the cartels have...they do not add up close to one another at all. The government routinely use rebels, insurgents and black market means to over throw governments. It over throws an undesirable government faster than peace talks, and negotiations ever could. Look how fast Gaddafi fell by arming and funding rebels to Gaddafi's regime. The same couldn't be done with Saddam in Iraq, he had the majority of his peoples approval.

It may seem far fetched, but once you can see all the players on the chess board and calculate the strategies...it becomes clearer; name all the countries that got the label: Axis of Evil ... "States like (Iraq, Iran, & North Korea), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." -- George W. Bush, SOTU Speech, 1/29/02 is it a coincidence that the very countries that always get named have no diplomatic ties to The Holy See? (please see link: Holy See) and look at the map of countries that have no diplomatic process or ties; and the ones labeled Axis of Evil by Bush. en.wikipedia.org...

Is Israel behind the attacks of 9-11 like many conspiracy theorists believe? Or are they a puppet patsy pawn like O. North was? When presidents talk to AIPAC many see the POTUS as kissing their ass as if they are a secret puppet of AIPAC, or is Israel just an excuse for democratic governments to get in the middle of mid-East affairs? Put two nations on a chess board; and consider all the nations (players watching), who is hedging their bets, who is profiting, who is being put in check, which ones stale mate? I don't agree with the decision made for the formation of the Israel state smack dab in the middle of an existing Palestine, but that is history. Could both possibly come to agreeable terms; if those watching didn't take sides and offer their own strategies? Am I the only one wondering why, it is not considered politically or socially incorrect, to slur Jewish people like other races? South Park has been doing this on a weekly basis for over 15 years now. I ask you how long a show in which a white European decent character, on a show targeted for children and young adults would last, if that character were to call another character on the show; a Nigger and spout stereotypes weekly for over 15 years? Especially, if all media were controlled by people of Jewish descent...it doesn't stand up to reason.

I don't hate any race nor group of people, I don't care what forefathers did and what they didn't do. We are all here by a hormonal desire to have sex, very very few people are on this planet because they copulated to conceive; more like they were fulfilling a need for self sexual gratification...and plop you came to be soon after. Is that really something to be proud of? Did you choose to fertilize a white, black, yellow, brown or red egg and become your race? We are all born from and of desire; the same animal desires and drives carry and drag us all through life. I hate people individually based on their character, over the course of time, we all have our off days where we don't feel like smiling or socializing because we are brooding over some internal conflict.

I am asking that when you place those countries on the board, have no bias see each one from their actions and relations, look for motives and bad days, and understand those nations are individuals and not their country, just as you are a child and not the parent, just as some children dislike their parents because of how they were brought up in the parent nation house, and how some love their parent country because they were brought up and treated with kindness. Some people and their nation parent disagree with how other nation parents treat their children.

Many times the nation parent doesn't understand they wouldn't be a nation parent if not for their children, and none of the children chose the nation as parent. When growing up with our nation parent; we do have choices...to rebel, protest, ignore, cope or change our relationship with our parent nation by fixing it; you know you want to climb the global fence and play with the neighbor kids, and if you don't then you're the one that will uphold the hate of those monkeys before you, and beat any new monkeys that come around, just because that's the way it was always done around there...

At first the resignations were not troubling at all. Any industry that is under a lot of pressure will see lots of resignations, prosecutions and firings.

However, the central bank resignations are sending up a red flag.

The fact that central banking is globalized and affects every monetary policy in the world -at the top of the food chain- suggests that there may be some massive shift or policy change among central banks. Of course, trickling down to all types of banking institutions.

From the beginning of the Republican debates, the topic of doing away with the Federal Bank has grown into a popular topic in the mainstream, even Obama has taken interest. With bills being approved to investigate and do away with Congressional insider trading and really looking into corruption, has them all shaking in their boots. In a sense resigning is an interesting trickle down effect occurring through the whole financial controllers Not to mention corporations and banks holding onto money instead of putting it back into the economy, since they are doing this and the dollar is not gold based anymore, large corporations and banks can inflate and deflate the economy at will, by holding onto or releasing held funds by putting it into the market or by taking it out. Putting the dollar back to a gold base would cut that nonsense out.

Every dollar you have is a debt someone else or yourself owes...holding these dollars hostage also holds those in debt hostage. It's a vicious cycle few want to spend, fearing economic collapse, which in turn makes things worse and the worse it gets the less people spend rinse repeat until full collapse. This is reason behind stimulus packages....they are like a electrocardiogram to try and shock the economy back to life and make people feel safe with spending again, it seems all of that psyops business with that terror level chart willfully dialing up stress and tension in the masses, to get them behind the Iraq war backfired, and instead created spending anxiety. Obama can't fix this, only we the people and corporations and banks can by freeing up the notes of debt into the economy that we and other people owe.

Until we can do this, they will keep having to ask congress to allow more money to be printed which increases the debt ceiling, making the national debt balloon, out of control. This is why the value of the dollar decreased, there's way more printed cash out there, to try and supply the debt demands. We should be ok though, because once the economy gets flowing and people get spending the federal reserve will collect and burn off the extra bills. The problem is they can't deduct the amount they literally burn in the furnace from the national debt. Silly thing money...

Silly thing money...

Quite hellarious actually,

The notion that money has to be backed by anything is questionable. The value of money is in its integrity, that is why gold has worked well. Now with computers and the growing checks and balances in the system this integrity can be supplied in another way. Fiat money has shown this principle working with credit being used to help start up the global economic engine.

The way the money supply is becoming regulated is based more on the need for social trade. Increase the cash supply and prices go up, decrease the cash supply and prices go down. In this way inflation targets are the measure of cash supply. Growing conflicts, uncertainties and difficulties of establishing a global economy has lead to a few mistakes. There is a clear growing problem as banks took the power of increasing the cash supply through the credit system.

In the past it was the governments responsibility to manage the cash supply for the social benefit. International trade was very difficult as agreeable trade terms where gradually reached. Now the international banking and economic systems have merged and continue to centralised, it has been a very long and hard process that still has more work to go. The black market systems are a part of life, but are getting exposed as technological progression and global harmonisation is exploring all aspects of this world.

With the some of the bankers resigning, I do consider it more important that the machine gets fixed than public punishments getting displayed. Things are a mess, but when you see how many different people, cultures and histories are all wrapped up in it, it is no surprise. There is also some strength and common ground established throughout the world with the ability to trade and interact. It is going to hurt if it was all to stop.

reply to post by kwakakev


Perhaps, the problem is having too many different ways in how banking systems work, and when they collide it makes a nasty mess of things. I've heard politicians blaming the world economic crisis, on everything from gas prices, housing markets, to war and everything in between. Perhaps it's really Greenspan's fault for retiring and those that took over his post had no idea how to juggle it all and make it work like he did ...the time line matches up

reply to post by Darkchemistry


The SDR from the IMF is the best solution I have seen so far to help stabilise things, generally it is an international currency unit based on many different currencies. I have not seen too many other options otherwise and does have serious implications if mishandled. With such a mix of economic systems it will help reduce some of the international conflict on the money markets. If a certain economy was to crash then it will also assist in the fall out. There does appear to be lots of different work going on.

The biggest problem in getting the books to start adding up again is what to do with the black market?

I think regulating and taxing the black market and setting up red light districts is a better solution than what we have now, there's a few countries that this works well in...except when tourists from restrictive countries use it as an excuse to visit for sex and drug tourism, and are not up on cultural norms of that country.

The hard part is there are many legitimate industries and jobs that born out of illegality and depend on a black market, and are dependent on it's existence. Yet believe they fight the good fight, when it's really cutting off the nose just to spite ones face.

Just look at the damage repressive laws on a culture in the name of morals does to other countries. Thailand for one is plagued by human trafficking, sex tourists can buy a daughter as young as the buyer wishes from a poor family and rape abuse and sell her as he wishes, then discard her as trash. That's the cost of a black market, and politicians spout that prostitution and drugs are illegal to protect innocent children? As long as it's not in our back yard they say, but it is. It's just not in the public eye when people get an appetite for such things, that craving does not go away, it turns into rape, molested and missing children in prohibitive countries. It will exist no matter how much cash and war we declare on it. Because there is demand there will be supply, and if no supply we clever monkeys will make it, such as designer drugs from over the counter drugs, and chemicals.

In my opinion it is best to cut the head off of the snake and regulate it, make it a what it is a medical problem and treat it as such. Eventually, people will become desensitized to it and not think twice about it. Much like how fashion has changed and music has changed, what the social norm of what obscene got defined as. In the 50- the 70's, Bands and comics were arrested for language and gestures quite often. Do we think twice about such things now, when people are exposing themselves during super bowl half times and dry humping inanimate objects? Here short shorts or mini skirts are nothing, but showing more than an ankle in some middle Eastern countries can become a death sentence.

I guess we have to ask ourselves what are we really protecting? Is it just a fantasy ideal that cannot be reached? No matter what we have tried to divert the problem, propaganda, tax dollars, incarceration...prohibition doesn't work...we should be able to swallow or pride and say it is a failed policy, that it actually doesn't curb or stop it in anyway, that it actually supports gangs and cartels, and offer a progression into a model based on other countries that are successful. One accepted definition for insanity, is repeating the same process and expecting a different outcome each time. Another is looking for your lost keys in places you wouldn't have ever placed them in the first place, we do this as in looking for answers in places that go against human nature. Some would argue Utah is a very moral state from the presence of the Mormon religion, but according to statistics; it ranks as the highest state for online adult website subscriptions. Thinking we can repress one side in favor of the other will never balance things out, it just leads to extremes...and we all know the problems extremists cause.

reply to post by Darkchemistry


I do agree that there does have to be some recognition of the reality.

The way that the drug industry is established, regulation can fit in very well. There are many parts of the world that have very little to no pain medication with the doctors that can prescribe it taking huge risks. There is also a well established farming system to produce a lot of it. In the middle we have war lords regulating the trade, it can be a risky business when there are no legal protections in the transactions.

We have a system where who has the most fire power generally winning at the end of the day. There are many benefits and options with the addictive nature of drugs and who controls it. It is also a very complex issue with many different local and individual variations. The demand for it is clear, the management of it can do with improvement.

The trafficking of people also a big problem with some dark and horrific overtones. There are many historical, social, economic and cultural reasons behind this. A medial approach with an objective and ethical investigation will work better to get at the actual problem than continued violence. It has been going on for thousands of years and is not going to change overnight.

I guess we have to ask ourselves what are we really protecting?

There is a lot of conflict going on with different values and customs in how a person should live their life. The main guide I use to decide between right and wrong is 'can I be honest about it?'. I know this can be detrimental at times in the world of business and politics with many protections to keep these secrets.

The "I guess we have to ask ourselves what are we protecting?" line was meant to convey irony, in the sense that we aren't protecting anything even though we think we are, it all still goes on that's reality like it or not. I agree, that "Can I be honest about it" is detrimental. Unfortunately, because of illegalities and not regulating, it automatically demonizes a person. Say a college student or young teen, experiments with marijuana for whatever reason. They know it is illegal, so it builds an internal conflict. On one hand they've been led to believe it's morally, legally and socially wrong...and on the other hand they might not see anything wrong with smoking marijuana as their experience increases. Now they have to take sides, or be ripped apart from internal conflict. Before they smoked they didn't feel like they were a criminal or have to worry about legal and social issues from marijuana. Now that they have, they are an outlaw and criminal and have to hide their behavior if they continue.

A lot of conflict can arise out of their choice from all the stigma attached. If it were legal and regulated, there wouldn't be any internal conflict...nor would they have to take sides, nor would they have legal ramifications; that could keep them from progressing ahead in life. With illegalities; this curious kid can end up paying a hefty toll, and it isn't fair to them or their families or society. What can they be honest about in such a situation? There is no gray area in the legal system, either they are on the side or the law or they are not. At some point in mental development, people start to look at the all the consequences; before they make a choice, and decide from there.

Laws made on moral stances; will always have conflicts and proponents on both sides, splitting society on the issue. Law makers need to look at; what's best and safest for society on a whole, if they make such laws. I think there should be; a human nature clause to such laws, if they make them all. When abortion was illegal, there were black market abortionists operating coat hanger and vacuum cleaner clinics. I say, we have made a step forward in a more positive and healthy direction away from such things. The abortion issue is still there, legal or not. I personally; don't think a government needs to play parent on the moral choices of its citizens, otherwise there is no such thing as separation of church and state. The government should however; instead use the money spent fighting moral battles, on tolerance and educating people; as to what their choices may hold for them, but take no sides on the issue.

reply to post by Darkchemistry


The idea of 'separation between church and state' has some validity in taking a more objective approach to matters of governance, but only goes so far as both system influence social norms and behaviour. I do agree that education is the best way to resolve moral decisions, these are very complex decisions with many ramifications and potential options.

To get back on topic, the global economy is still somewhat functional. I don't know all the details but it is complex with many challenges. There was a job to do with its growth and good or bad, this job has been done. There are still many issues to confront to get the machine running smooth and a change in direction and culture can help address these next layer of issues. It will be foretelling how the next selection at the World Bank goes.

Well, it appears my theory of castling to protect their asses, is on the money no pun intended; I am curious who was tipping them off ahead of time... view: www.youtube.com... It's interesting how, the video covers many posts in this thread; fiat's, central bank, Greenspan...Starting a new thread to help break this...

If you have been following this thread the discussion has shifted some what to over here: www.abovetopsecret.com... There is a lot of information there on what is happening with corruption and why all the bankers and why some of those that received or hedged some of the payout have been have been resigning. If you would like to discuss any of the posts provided here don't worry I won't be abandoning this thread

Thanks.