It is obvious to me that there is a serious lack of discussions on what to do in the case of bankers who have exercised their civil liberties at the expense of the customers of their banks and their civil unions.
The best and most obvious solution would be to simply tell those banksters that we can take their civil liberties away any time we wish to by the use of a pen.
The pen is indeed as powerful as it has ever been, and is now already more powerful than the bankster.
During the Age of Tolerance, every pollution brought on the planet´s surface by assistance from any banking corporation provided it was stupid enough, men did not pause to ask themselves a simple question; is it really worth it to keep letting banksters have civil liberties when the consequences for doing so may be seriously harmful for the environment and civil liberties of the customers of their banks?
The Age of Tolerance brought serious planetary catastrophes created by mankind and unleashed against Earth, and used to distrupt or disturb the natural harmony and balance there was in the overall environment of the planet.
Today, mankind has learnt to fight against the bankers and violence has had a particularly strong effect.
But it is the banker rights issue that must now be called internationally into question.
It is obvious that there is a critically large number of banksters operating on the whole planet who pose a threat to the national security and sovereignity of every nation on Earth.
These banksters will not care how many resources they usurp, until it has been made plain and clear to them who it is that is in charge.
One way to do that is to reduce their civil liberties and slowly take them away.
This will make the banksters less powerful and make way for the ability of more Americans and others to take over major banks than has already been done before, and makes civil and community banks more powerful.
It cannot possibly work that one society composed by nearly or over 500000 people will tolerate mass civil disobedience by the society´s ruling banking elite at the expense of the environment surrounding that society.
So we are forced to respond to the violence and harm which the heads of numerous corrupt banking corporations have done to their customers and thus to us.
This means that the call to reduce their civil liberties or take them away, shall not stop, and shall only increase as the number of more angry voices increases.
Propertly loss due to the impact corrupt banking corporations and their operations has had over the world´s environment, is now a universal threat, and cannot be contained by mere talk.
Legal action must be put into effect to maintain national security and make border control by communities and their leaders easier.
The bankster of today has no chance against the informed citizen, and if this bankster is operating in terms of civil disobedience which is likely to cause alarm in a civil community, then his rights must be removed - he has no civil liberties if he can´t handle his own, if he doesn´t know how to exercise them without doing so at the expense of others.
In turn, the wise bankster who knows how to ensure the survival of his banking business will know that a key feature in commerse is trust.
During the Age of Tolerance, trust was thrown out of the window, so to speak.
There was no trust between banksters and the customers of their banks, and because of that major banking corporations lost their properties, and experienced colossal losses of their reputations which shall never return.
Think of the famous Enron scandal.
To beat a giant you must know how to shrink him or how to chain him.
If this giant is eating everything around you and all the animals in your valley you have to do something.
You don´t just do what people still do in many communities, which is to sit and watch and do nothing until it´s too late and the giant is suddenly eating you.
The giant has to accept that if he is to be welcome in your community you must do the welcoming first and he cannot invade.
If he does invade, he´s being a treat you cannot tolerate.
International banking laws have made the fantasy tale of the giant who invades the peaceful farmer occupied valley into a sad repeater of a story, where the giant always has the upper hand and is even put into the charge of the community and has to be constantly fed.
When an expert in giants arrives to the scene the expert is laughed at and ridiculed.
Suddenly the giant is no longer a giant but one of the community, which does not change in any way the giant´s insatiable eating habits.
To control the giant, you must tell him you know he is a giant, and he must know you know so and that you are well enough equipped to deal with him.
This is where the most effective weapon against any giant invasion comes in - large population numbers.
Because the giants are always fewer in number than those whose communities they choose to invade in the fantasy stories, it is often cleverly never revealed that they cooperate to make sure that their race doesn´t go extinct and keep themselves at a safe distance from the human villagers and the peasants.
But now, things are different.
This time we can legalize the giants, and we can tell the giants what is going to happen, if they do not assist us in terms of maintaining stability within our community - we take away from them their civil liberties, as they had come from a world where they had never known civil liberties themselves, but instead had to abide by unwritten rules, often cruel and harsh ones.
Today, being a bankster means being a bankster in the post Age of Tolerance years, the period which comes after the period people let banksters do whatever they pleased without thinking carefully about the consequences.
Henceforth there is no such thing anymore as an Age of Tolerance.
There is no such thing anymore as tolerating the insatiable rudeness and ruthlessness by which so many of those banking corporations showed those who just wanted to be left alone and live their lives on their own terms.
I believe that it is absolutely possible to take away civil liberties which banksters had exercised at the expense of other people in their local civil communities, but at the same time the people would keep those civil liberties because they have earned them and especially if they have snown by example that they have earned them.
Replies