Banking “Technocrats” Undermine Democracy

Banking “Technocrats” Undermine Democracy


PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I’m Paul Jay in Washington. In September 2011, at a time when the sovereign
debt raiders, as some people call them, were focusing on Italy as their next target, the
European Central Bank sent a letter–supposed to be secret, but it was leaked. And in this
letter it gave very direct instructions, you could say, to then prime minister Berlusconi
about privatization, lowering pensions, changing hiring and firing, regulations and laws–all
things one would think should be the outcome of the political process within Italy. So
what is this about banks telling countries how to govern themselves? Now joining us to talk about this process
in Europe, and also how this shows up in the United States, is Gerry Epstein. Gerry is
the codirector of the PERI institute in Amherst, Massachusetts, but today he joins us from
New York. Thank you for joining us, Gerry. GERALD EPSTEIN: Thanks for having me, Paul. JAY: So talk a bit about the significance
of what happened last September, the memorandum, and what’s happened since in terms of these
quote-unquote “technocrats” becoming the leaders in Italy and Greece, and the role of the banks
in this process. EPSTEIN: Yeah. We have this trend now where
instead of democratically elected governments controlling these countries, so-called technocrats,
the central bankers, are coming in, taking over as the prime ministers of governments
in Italy, in Greece. In Italy we have Monti, and in Greece we have Papademos. These are
supposed to be neutral arbiters of economic policy, but in fact are mostly doing the bidding
of the large banks. And the other European countries, especially Germany, they want austerity. And what’s amazing to me about is they’re
going way beyond any kind of narrow policies with respect to debt repayment, monetary policy.
They’re going into the deep core of social and economic policy in many of these countries.
And that letter from the central bank, the European Central Bank, that you described
went to the highly contested issues that have plagued Italy for many years about labor laws,
privatization, and many others. JAY: Well, let’s look at some of the things
that they’re demanding in this memorandum and more generally, putting pressure on these
governments and others. And, of course, the United States, we see very similar things,
where state governments have been elected through a supposed democratic process–I suppose
people have a lot of questions about just how democratic is, for a lot of reasons, including
how much money can get thrown at these elections now–but somewhat similar policies being demanded.
So, first of all, there’s this issue of privatizations, which seems to be one of the main objectives
during this crisis, to get privatizations through. So what does that look like in Europe? EPSTEIN: Yeah. In Italy, the letter from the
European Central Bank to the Berlusconi government said, you have to pursue privatization of
public services. And this includes water, privatization of water. And, in fact, just
months before, there had been a referendum in Italy about privatization of water, and
the voters had rejected it. And now the so-called independent technocratic European Central
Bank is coming in and telling them to overthrow what the people have decided and engage in
privatization. Another important goal of these kinds of so-called
technocratic policies is to gut labor protection laws. In Italy there are strong protections
for–in terms of hiring and firing. And what they’re trying to impose are these so-called
labor flexibility, with the idea that this is going to generate more economic growth
and more employment. But as David Howell from the New School for Social Research, Dean Baker,
and others have shown, labor flexibility does not lead to more employment and more economic
growth; it just leads to lower wages and higher profits. JAY: The other thing that seems to be very
much in target or focused on is pensions in all countries, the idea, I guess, of lowering
pension age and qualifications. Why is that such a big issue in Europe? EPSTEIN: Well, it’s such a big issue in Europe
because that’s–for two reasons. One is it’s a big liability of the government, and so
there is a big–a high degree of budget impact on that. But the second is trying to undermine
the power of labor and forcing workers into the hands of the banks. So if you reduce public
pensions, not only do you make it so that workers have to take any job they can get
to support themselves and work longer, but it also gives more room for private pension
plans. And as we know from the debate over privatizing Social Security here in the United
States, that’s been one of the long-term goals of finance. Indeed, the general push of all
of these policies is to gut the welfare state as much as policy and return all of these
kinds of protections to profit-making opportunities for banks and other private companies. JAY: Is part of what’s happening here–if
you look at sort of the underlying economic forces at play here, I mean, one part of it
is–and we’ve talked about this on The Real News quite a bit–the willingness and desire
of various elites and financial elites to take advantage of the crisis to undo social
policy, New Deal type things in the U.S., welfare safety net in Europe, and all that,
and take advantage of sort of the weaker hand of labor and people during this crisis is
one thing. But is there also another part of this, which is there’s just so much capital
with nowhere to go, that because of this unequal distribution of wealth and income, this massive
amount of capital in very few hands, and the real economy not a great place to invest in,
so what you need to do is pick apart what’s–there is of the public sector as a place for this
capital to go to? Is that part of what’s going on here? EPSTEIN: Yeah, I think that’s a good–I think
that’s an important aspect. They’re trying to destroy all of the publicly provided markets
to find new markets in, particularly, a period of slow growth. And in a particular a period
when they’re actually pushing austerity, the size of the overall pie isn’t going to grow
much, so they have to chip away at previously protected parts of it. Part of what is so evil about this whole approach
is the transformation, the distortion of language that is part of it, the use of the term technocrat
to hide the fact that Trichet, that Monti, Draghi, all of these people have very, very
close ties to the big banks. Most of them worked at one time or another for Goldman
Sachs or other big financial firms. We have the same kind of thing, of course, in the
United States, where we had Larry Summers, who works for the financial sector and makes
millions of dollars doing so, being put forward as a quote-unquote “technocrat”. We have the
Federal Reserve that has engaged, as you know, in all kinds of backdoor bailouts of the financial
sector again seen as sort of a technocratic solution, but we see the revolving door between
the Federal Reserve and the private financial sector, using the term fiscal consolidation
for gutting public services and generating unemployment. All of this is Orwellian language,
which is meant to obscure what is really going on, which is the takeover of democratic control,
which, as you said, is already undermined by money, and putting it firmly in the hands
of the financial sector. JAY: Yeah. I love this term, technocrat, because
it gives this sense that there’s this objective problem with an objective set of policies,
and the whole society needs to take its medicine, but politicians are too vulnerable to public
opinion, so you need some technocrats that are just going to pragmatically do what needs
to be done, as if all of this is above interest and has nothing to do with the financial sector.
I mean, you’re right. It’s pure Orwell. EPSTEIN: And in The Financial Times, there
was an article recently talking about the profile of Papademos, the prime–the technocratic
prime minister there, saying that he was heading up a caretaker government, you know, as if
the Greek people are a bunch of infants and they have to–we have to wait till they can
grow up and exercise their democratic rights. Part of the frustrating thing is that these
kinds of elite pushes to control these democratic systems are possible because the left is so
divided in the European countries, and divided here in the United States as well, of course.
Part of the left in Italy, for example, didn’t protest when this letter came out, because
they were so focused on just trying to get rid of Berlusconi, and they’ve accepted Monti
as a prime minister because they were just so happy to get rid of Berlusconi. So I think
there’s a great need for the left forces in all of our countries to really unite to oppose
these kinds of policies. We have to break this whole lock-hold of anti-democratic structures
that have been built up by the elites under neoliberal policies over the last 20 years,
so that once we have more democratic elections and vision, we actually have the ability to
implement them. JAY: So I guess at the moment the issue is
if people want to take this up, they need to hit the streets. EPSTEIN: Not a bad idea. JAY: Thanks for joining us, Gerry. EPSTEIN: Thank you. JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.

76 Comments on "Banking “Technocrats” Undermine Democracy"


  1. Banking "Technocrats" DO NOT Undermine Democracy, which is merely the tyranny of the majority over the soveriegnty of the individual.

    Democracy leads to Fascism BY DESIGN – the lesson is that 'the State' is obsolete.

    A Free Market is one that exists without government, which is simply the legal authority to initiate force and violence.

    So while the REAL news is without peer among current events journals, the title of this video is stupid and misleading.

    Democracy is not a virtue, Freedom is.

    Reply

  2. Governments never controlled companies. They've always carried out the will of the powerful. Bankers calling the shots is hardly new. Greenspan, Bernanke, Wolfensohn, Strauss-Kahn, Rothschild, Warburg, and the like, are the biggest thieves in the world, Mr. Epstein.

    Reply

  3. Democracy is the rule of the people who constitute a society, ideally people that live together decide the rules to which all must abide. In the real world there is only plutocracy (the rule of the wealth) disguised ad a representative democracy. The funny thing is that even the wealth is fake, in fact banks produce a virtual wealth in the form of confidence (that is what people refer as free market). Freedom without rules is the law of the jungle where the strongest prevail.

    Reply

  4. Who'd have thought that Barney Frank not only was a sell out, but ran the Senate Committee to bail out the banks at every turn, and continuously pat himself and others on the back for doing everything his constituents did not elect him to do.

    Redistricting of the area of his constituents or not, I know them to be highly politically aware and involved in politics. Frank would have lost EVEN IF his constituent's District had not been changed. I assure you, he lost every bit of support, gay or not

    Reply

  5. Totalitarian theft of all property and distruction of free states. The decendents of those who did similar things in Russia amd the Ukraine leading to brutal holocausts of 10s of millions before WWII ironically by those who backed the Zionists… they are now trying to replace the US $ with a wholly bankster controlled note that is not even freely traded. They are now trying to do to the world what they did to Russia. This is not a downturn it is massive theft with austerity to break the nations

    Reply

  6. Dominique Strauss Kahn was trying to expose and stop them from this horrid plan and the plan to replace the dollar and he was trying to get message to Congress and to Obama when he was framed he was also winning against sarkozy. DSK was a good man and before GW they had no such powers..Democracy is being attacked. 911 was an attack on the Democratic state as much as on the people by these Zionist and their other names

    Reply

  7. Paul, nice report on the duplicitous and deceptive nature of politicians ushered in under the banner of so-called experience with the financial sector that ultimately reveals the the true objective of the elites.

    While there were the true "left" that voted in the Primary for Kociinich and wouldn't ever vote for Obama, there are far to few. The Greek PM's replacement supported by those whom are too naive to know that they voted for the fox to guard the chicken coup demonstrates sheer stupidity.

    Reply

  8. Sure it exists but it is the freedom of the strongest to prevail the weaker and the freedom of the weaker to succumb to the stronger. The first laws recorder in history where established in sumer by kings to protect the weaker members of society. In a democracy people replace the king in deciding which rules should be enforced. I agree that people should be given a choice to be part of a society and abide to its rules.

    Reply

  9. Israel have hired internet agents to write on theese pages to try to undermine the truth, since Israel have nothing to gain from the truth. Or rather they try to twist the truth and history by working the internet.

    Reply

  10. Bankers do like socialism for themselves in the form of low interest loans, bail-outs and maybe some helpful regulation but for the rest of us bankers LOVE capitalism. I mean did you watch this video? Privatization, removing worker protection laws, deregulation, removing public safety nets. They have been pushing these "free market" ideals for decades. That's why they fund corporate "free market" think tanks. They do not want the public to own their heritage sites, or their hospitals or water…

    Reply

  11. It's been going on for 200 years, since the Congress of Vienna. Give'm another decade or so, once peak oil starts to kick in. lol

    Reply

  12. Let's face it, democracy is a scam anyway, designed to give the sheep an illusion of choice.
    Should be called democrazy!!

    Reply

  13. People don't realize that banks are acting this way because of the system they are in. Change this system and we will stop being arrogant, greedy, competitive, heartless dicks. /watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

    Reply

  14. I've always felt the bankers controlled the world but now they REALLY have a stranglehold on the world.

    Reply

  15. They want to control WATER .. Then they just put into the water what they want. This is the intent.

    Reply

  16. Exactly… I'd have no problems with a technocratic government as long as it's goals were the health and well being of *people* as opposed to the wellbeing of *profits*, markets, currencies, and other arbiturary measures that only serve to benefit a small minority.

    Reply

  17. What? Technocrats undermining democracy? Gee you think so? Silvio Berlusconi was so entrenched that the Italians couldnt get his ass out of office not even with a crowbar. Lo & behold the Italian economy approaches default & the bankers remove Berlusconi with the same ease as one would swat a fly
    This shows you just who's really in charge, who's really calling the shots. They're not very well liked, in fact they were the only ones that Christ showed anger at. Yeah you got it, the money changers

    Reply

  18. Business are not good or evil. They are "amoral" entities motivated by profit. Therefore expecting "well being" to naturally arise out of such a system is neither logical nor has any historical precidence.

    To estabolish morality governments intervene through laws, regulations, & court systems. Corruption arises because the market "profit motive" influences government for personal gain.

    If well being is the goal, a science based approach would be far more effective than a market based one.

    Reply

  19. We're finally getting our shit together in Ireland. Ordinary people are joining the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes. This campaign looks set to defeat the governments drive to implement new taxes on ordinary people to pay for the gambling debts of european and local capitalists. In the short term at least, victory looks likely and the campaign has great long term potential as long as ordinary people remain suspicious of political groups (even currently helpful ones).

    Reply

  20. Nothing is "immune" to corruption when humans are involved. However democracy and transparency are the best antidotes / preventative measures against corruption that we have.

    Reply

  21. The outcome of the "free market" is not always the most efficient or "best" outcome. There are all kinds of ways markets can fail: concentration of wealth / power, externalities, information asymmetry, etc.
    The market is already "distorted", and not just by gov't. In saying "gov't is at fault" you arbitrarily choose one kind of distortion over another. As citizens we need to be able to set certain boundaries to keep markets out of trouble. Free? Yes. But also stable. Gov't has to help w/ that.

    Reply

  22. So, lemme get this straight. You're saying that we can tell how much someone has "contributed" by how much money they have? Do you believe the value of a person is completely reflected in the size of their bank account?
    The real greed is on Wall St. Most ordinary folks aren't out to make millions. They just want jobs that pay enough to live decently. They want access to education and good health care. A safe and clean environment. Basic justice. Some time to enjoy w/ friends/family.

    Reply

  23. The same way how all science is implemented… Through publication & peer review

    As long as the parameters for what constitutes "well being" are agreed to (which can be done through democratic means) then the "scientific method" is always self validating and self correcting.

    As long as there is data, anyone anywhere can test its validity.

    Yet today nearly all politics is governed by "opinion" regardless of fact and a country ruled by "opinion" is easily manipulated and easily corrupted.

    Reply

  24. The outcome of the "free market" is not always the most efficient or "best" outcome.

    Everything is risk, those wise choose the most overall effective ways. Doesn't mean they can't fail, it means they are less likely to, and the result is less.

    You can choose to bet your retirement on lotto tickets. Or a large investment of land. Yes bad things can happen to both, but both the chances and the worst outcomes, as well as the best tend to favor one method.

    Reply

  25. citizens we need to be able to set certain boundaries to keep markets out of trouble

    Simple is the key word here. Barring assault, theft and fraud yes, a couple local custom laws yes. But more only makes courts slower, lawyers more necessary, and the resources to win a case more dependent on those with wealth enough to finance the law team, or financial endurance to last for months/years.

    Libraries of laws help only obfuscation and the rich.

    Reply

  26. Wow how words have changed. – Privatization

    Most governments that talk about privatization now mean "government sanctioned monopolies." – e.g. your business is legally the only one of it's type to run here. What was once a gov service now you run.

    When "free market" people talk about it, it means no one is barred from running a business for this service. The old gov owned one is usually sold off, but no one is barred from starting others. No gov protections.

    Reply

  27. Language sucks; there aren't enough words to go around.
    BUT IT'S LUDICROUS TO REFER TO BANKERS AS TECHNOCRATS!
    Attention to theREALNEWS: DO NOT ENCOURAGE THIS TREND!
    Call them something else, like Banker-Bureaucrats or Bankercrats.

    Reply

  28. Bankers, accountants, banking software engineers, etc. might know a lot about software, but "technocrat" should be reserved for people that develop environmentally-sustainable technology and implement it via technocratic government. Don't steal the word "technocrat"!

    Reply

  29. Yes, the market is a useful concept. It's a way of organizing the economy that *can be* beneficial to the entire society. But left completely alone, it has destructive cycles, is unstable, and can cause great harm.
    This goes beyond evaluating the risk/reward of any single decision. There are inherent market flaws. Do you know what externalities are, for example? Also, check out Minsky on instability.

    Reply

  30. I don't think the "amount" of laws is the paramount concern. The most important factor is that public good is reflected in the laws, and that concentrations of power/wealth are not allowed to capture the legislative process.
    We *have* to have accountable (to the people) law-makers before we can even talk about how simple or complex regulation should be.
    I agree, today lobbyists use complexity as a tool subvert regulation. I'm all for simplicity, but more important: get the money out of politics.

    Reply

  31. At 6:54 Epstein hit the nail on the head; it is pure unadulterated evil. This is all orchestrated by the Rothschild's plan to quite literally take over the world as their own. They're the ones who own all the banks and are telling countries what to do.

    It's all there in black and white in Andrew Carrington Hitchcock's book "The Synagogue of Satan".

    Reply

  32. Here's a recent, good interview on this very topic.
    watch?v=vc-d5DNhrDo
    Some occupy folks wrote a detailed comment to the SEC as its looking at the latest dodd-frank regulations; a point in the process where the banks usually get their way.

    Reply

  33. You seem to be describing things like the internet/telcom companies. You should pay closer attention to those mega companies that somehow operate at a loss for 5+ years (some 30+) and yet buy out other companies. These companies are propped up by gov or the giant banks (see how "necessary" the giant banks are now?) They would otherwise fail, they assets be bought up by smaller companies who would again compete.

    Reply

  34. Yes I'm aware of externalities. Thats precisely why I advocate a small set of laws/rules where it's easy and quick to take someone to court.

    When the rules are small you don't need a lawyer to go over them. Reviewing any undue treatment is also easy. Libraries of laws only favor those with the wealth to hire teams of lawyers and take years in court.

    Personally I'm for empowering the smallest person.

    Reply

  35. The amount of laws is exactly of paramount concern. The more complex things are the exponentially more resources have to be allotted to make use of them.

    Having so many laws you don't couldn't possibly know them anymore grants 3 large moral hazards:

    1.) Someone who dislikes you can use an inane law you didn't know to entrap you.
    2.) Complexity creates loopholes those with resources can discover/exploit.
    3.) Less complex means more eyes, which means more error checking, and more stability.

    Reply

  36. Actually it's even worse than that. The larger the populace governed by a set of laws the more distinct cultural diversity there is, and the more ignorant the laws become of the local situations. The can even create problems where they were supposed to stop ones from starting.

    The more people under the same set of laws, the simpler they HAVE to be.

    Reply

  37. You are speaking a myth right now. Who told you that if the banks weren't bailed out it would be the end of the world? The banks you say? The same people who told you about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

    A number of countries (not companies) entire populations of people defaulted recently like Iceland. Look at their news at the time. Same thing was said, end of the world for these guys. Lehman Bros, Ecuador, Belize, etc.

    Recovery & then growth in less than a year.

    Reply

  38. Your thinking is keeping those companies you hate so much in power. Well we can't live without them. Of course you can!

    In fact the more you bail them out the more reckless and dastardly they are becoming. You literally create your own belief prison. Can't let private companies take over, b/c only a couple will get big and we can't let them ever die, and we'll hate them.

    So again, WHO told you it would be the end of the world if they ever fell? It sure as hell wasn't history.

    Reply

  39. You're listing things off a flyer without even thinking about them.

    Take one. We need banking, technically we could stuff our mattresses, but sure, lets say we "need" it. Who do you leave your money with? Someone you trust right? Hows your trust level for the big banks? How about the government? Two of the least trustworthy?

    So who would you leave it with? Family? Someone local that you knew? Thats starting to sound like a lot of private local banks.

    Reply

  40. You're under this crazy assumption that if the gov doesn't start them NO will put together these services. Of course they will!

    If a company goes up to start a mining/logging town they usually build the basic accommodations b/c no one else is there. If it grows some of the resourceful individuals provide electricity better than the camp's generator.

    Or did you seriously think everyone sits around and does nothing except exactly what they are supposed to do at work?

    Reply

  41. Again, you sound like you are reading off a pamphlet.

    But hey, since you are comparing discoveries (not how they become widely used). How many important discoveries had no government funding whatsoever? Way WAY more.

    You know in 1600 or so some of the most impressive works of art in the world were commissioned by the papacy. That mean only the Vatican should manage all artistic endevour?

    Do you even hear the kind of logic you are suggesting?

    Reply

  42. This is part of the problem. "Profit is evil" is the motto of the day.

    "Profit" is any extra you have left over after all resources are expended and deducted from income.

    If you talk about it in any other sense than money you see why it's important. A profit of air is pretty necessary. A profit of food, water etc.

    Since "profit is evil" you go into debt. That makes you dependent on lenders, depending on how dependent this can be describe as slavery. All b/c "profit is evil".

    Reply

  43. (Profit cont) You can still do charitable work or public services, but it has to be people individually opting in.

    Again if profit were food, you wait until you have enough food to survive, then based on the extra some choose to devote time/effort to bettering thing (make an oven)

    You do NOT automatically take a bit of food from everyone otherwise those who never wanted the oven will be rather annoyed. And work less as you take stuff from them anyway to make things they don't like.

    Reply

  44. Regulations were asked for after the crash. You got Dodd Frank. Now bailouts are virtually guaranteed.

    So how pray tell are you going to get regulations you'd like if the party most sympathetic to it just enacts worse regulations every chance it gets?

    It's like asking a kid "What are you going to do about your abusive Dad?" "Ask him to be less abusive."

    Good luck with that.

    Reply

  45. Profit isn't evil, just forbidden? Sounds a bit like the recent free speech laws. You can say whatever you want.. in areas we designate.

    If you're talking about state sanctioned monopolies, see previous comment.
    Those wouldn't be the same multi national competitors that you hate yet couldn't possibly stop with bailouts and state funding?

    For welfare, if you are suggesting a business can't turn a charity profitable, big surprise.
    Forced charity – see previous comment.

    Reply

  46. Again fallacious line of logic. Any group with large resources (or larger than normal) can commission anything they see fit. The government didn't make UNIVAC or ENIAC companies did, and they sold them to the government. The company had to cover costs and make a profit.

    Companies made all those things you talked about. The government is terrible at it. How'd that Chevy volt turn out? Strange as EV hobbyists can do better for 10-20k in their garage.

    Reply

  47. Having a company trying to create something, then trying to sell it, if the gov decides to buy it thats all fine. It's just another customer. Having a company with a contract or a gov branch is NOT fine. As there is no consequence for failure.

    The reason many good results from comps of the past have been cut back is "too big to fail". They get big, fat, and lazy. Normally they'd fall by the wayside, but they are propped up.
    Pharma, News doesn't need to research. And you support this.

    Reply

  48. The Fed actually makes this even worse. The banks get to pick their own favorites to loan money to. They do so with strings, but they run the fed and have first access to it's money. So which giants stick around or die has nothing to do with how well they make their product any more, it's who is more favorable.

    Those with the friends can afford to be lazy.

    And again, your mentality supports this corrupt network.

    Reply

  49. I've been steered to dozens of privatization studies and none of the differentiate between open market and government contract/support. Worse, more than half aren't comparative. So they'll say there was X loss under this business, but fail to mention there was greater loss under the gov one they took over. Between gov supported private the number is about 50/50. Socialized losses = Fascism.

    You've been reading reports that essentially say Fascism doesn't work. Big surprise.

    Reply

  50. You are looking at effects rather than causes. Why were boards changing over to stocks you should ask.

    Why is unemployment such a fearful thing? It actually didn't used to be at all, it used to be an annoyance.

    By only having the choice of a few giants (which again you support). You can't pick any up and comer with better working conditions.

    There are few/no up and comers as the top is locked with fat and lazy dinosaur companies.

    You seriously create this giant mess for yourself.

    Reply

  51. First, capital gains tax isn't "gains" it's losses as it doesn't factor in inflation.

    If you save enough money to buy a meal. Invest it, and 10 years later have precisely enough money to buy that exact same meal you haven't gotten any wealthier.

    Yet you pay tax on the fact you preserved the value of your money.

    Worse, it favors inflation. The more they inflate, the more capital gains you'll have to pay to buy EXACTLY the same thing.

    Reply

  52. Second to find out if something CAUSES something else. You perform a simple logic experiment. If that purported "cause" didn't exist/happen, is it at all possible for the end incident to occur. If yes, it's not causal. If no it's a candidate for causal.

    Newton figured this out 400 years ago and it's been the backbone of scientific discoveries. (induction and deduction).

    And yet Keynesian macro economics still prefer voodoo.

    Lower Capital gains didn't cause the crash. Low interest rates did

    Reply

  53. I feel bad for you guys. You seem to have battered wife syndrome.

    You hang on to a system and a government that continues to abuse and lie to you, continuing to say "it's not really that bad, don't worry they'll listen this time." No one can talk you out of your delusion.

    It's just all a tragedy waiting to happen. And it's really sad.

    Reply

  54. You see that Obama may be incompetant/ blackmailed or as you say possibly working with the illuminati/Zionists- banksters to destroy all free nations. The fact is Dominique assumed Obama was a good man, as many did, and so he hoped he could get the message to Obama and also to the Congress– hearings were established just before he was taken away in cuffs. The most wonderful nation in the history of the world is now subverted by a handful of psychopaths- Senators fear talking against Israel etc

    Reply

  55. they are not technocrats– they are simply mobsters- filthy slimey mobsters- part of a cult of people that worship demons and Satan and act publically as if they are Jews. George Washington was a Freemason until he had discovered it had been corrupted by the Illuminati and then he turned against them. There scam is to use the greed and fear of men to take over the world. They are moronic psychopaths.

    Reply

  56. You couldn't be farther from the truth. Obama has continued on with GW Bush and made it even worse. Bush turned the entire US government aparatus over to the Zionist mobsters and allowed them to orchestrate 9/11. 9/11 was and still is used to promote the Zionist Israel– 9/11 has nothing short of destroyed America. All you see is one Zionist front person in Congress after the other undoing our Constitution and pushing us into more and more wars. You need to unwash your brain and start digging.

    Reply

  57. By the way the Holy Father didn't tell you people to sit around cheering Satan's Synagogue and the Antichrists of the world to push for the end of days. The Bible says NOT TO FALL FOR THEIR DECEPTIONS AND NOT TO AID AND ABET THEM! AND IF YOU DO YOU WILL GO TO HELL. The Bible explicitly states that a good person will not fall for their deceptions because of the nature of a good person. So many wicked racists were stired up in support of the evil war on terror because it gave them license to hate.

    Reply

  58. I don't really consider any of these gentlemen Technocrats, they are just bankers using a terminology which they might fall short from knowing it's true meaning, because futurology and technocratic thinking fall under the same umbrella and the way they are being depicted here in this new broadcast it appears they are doing more traditional conservative thinking appose to futurology style of thinking. They should re-think on what they are claiming they are.

    Reply

  59. As much as i HATE central banking, i have the SAME distain for giant gov't. The tone of the video is anti-privatization but American governmental run programs seem to always end up unsustainable, (ie military spending, Social Security, Amtrak, Medic-aid, etc). Unfortunately, this crisis will be blamed on "free-market capitalism, (which NO living American has seen in his or her lifetime) and will be an opportunity for neo-communists to infiltrate our Gov't.

    Reply

  60. This is why Kaela like Queens and Kings (who are already up there) that have all the knowledge of exactly what will happen if they do this or that. Welfare appears to be for breeding people to keep out invaders among other things. It isn't personal. They know we go through yugas and that it's semi-fixed, but you have to do things. At the end of the day, it's demoralizing.

    Reply

  61. Is technocracy not a byproduct of left wing gov expansion, and right wing acquiescence? The left wants to use government to run our lives, and we should be surprised when that dependency emboldens the new Medici? Its as though solidarity and democracy is going to be enough, when clearly, it isn't… There will always be those rich enough to bribe others. 

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *