posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM
I didn't see this posted on. To me its big stuff yet more of the same Elite push to Global Governance especially stronger IMF. Just like G20,WB, the
IMF itself and every other elitist parrot-organization.
In a report on IMF reform, the Group of 30 said no individual country should be able to veto decisions by the body, and supported the idea of
the IMF acting as a global reserve, using its various lending facilities.
It seems as though Guillermo Ortiz spearheaded the event. Ortiz is not only Governor of Banco de Mexico he is also current Chairman of the Bank for
Now in my opinion, Mexico's Central Bank is equally corrupt/criminal/malevolent as say, the Federal Reserve without all the two-faced pandering to
the masses. What I find odd is it's distinct place in international interactions among Central Banks. For Ortiz to be Chairman of the BIS says a lot
beyond his personal credentials. That these statements calling for substantial changes to IMF's protocol are made by the BIS chairman means that the
BIS is itself instep with the findings of the G30 as it is always. The G30 and BIS are likewise interchangeable with IMF policy. So essentially these
“recommendations” will become manifest.
Here's the current members of G30:
If you are familiar with famed economists you'll notice these are some of the best, most powerful economists in the world. Many of these individuals
have ruined many lives through their economic and business decisions. While G30 serves mostly as a think tank, it's recommendations often end up
These announcements by G30 represent what I think is more authoritative institutional support for what
is an ever-clearer transition to global government. This dictatorial consensus of the banking elite is becoming more and more obvious as it nears
In another move to shift the balance of power within the IMF, the G30 is pushing for the formation of an IMF Council that would replace the
fund's International Monetary and Financial Committee as its guide on policy matters.”
Now why would this be? The WSJ article states this to be a move mostly by the US to reduce European representation within the IMFC. Perhaps this could
be a sacrifice of US veto power and compromising by simply taking things off the books. The reason I say that is because the IMFC is like one of
Obama's Czars-- ie they informally recommend policy to the Board of the Directors, thus assuring less accountability, less public exposure, and less
for outsiders to complain about for the Anglo-US faction that comes with veto power. So they Status Quo Banking Cartel Elite can maintain bully power
without Veto. ***And less scrutiny.
Also I think that is also a call to simplify Europe under the EU and especially the ECB (Euro Central Bank) Keep in mind that Jean-Claude Trichet who
directs the ECB is also on the G30 Panel as well as the BIS.