Next page "THE G20 FIDDLES, WHILE THE PLANET BURNS" - PAUL HELLYER (THE GLOBAL B.E.M.-CONFERENCE - PART III) Kees Deckers November 2012 August 2013 Paul Hellyer's presentation is the topic of the third in a series of articles on the occasion of the 3-day conference organised by the Global  B.E.M., which took place in Hilversum on November 9, 10 and 11. Global B.E.M. stands for "Global Breakthrough Energy Movement". Paul Hellyer, 89 years old, is amongst others aeronautical engineer, former Canadian minister of defense, journalist and political commentator,  with a lifelong interest in macroeconomics. He has his own website, on which can be read amongst others:   Paul Hellyer is one of Canada’s best known and most controversial politicians. First elected in 1949, he was the youngest cabinet minister appointed to Louis S. St.  Laurent’s government eight years later. He subsequently held senior posts in the governments of Lester B. Pearson and Pierre E. Trudeau, who defeated him for the  Liberal Party leadership in 1968. The following year, after achieving the rank of senior minister, which was later designated Deputy Prime Minister, Hellyer resigned  from the Trudeau cabinet on a question of principle related to housing.  Although Hellyer is best known for the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces and for his 1968 chairmanship of the Task Force on Housing and Urban  Development, he has maintained a life-long interest in macroeconomics. Through the years, as a journalist and political commentator, he has continued to fight for  economic reforms and has written several books on the subject. ... ... In recent years he has become interested in the extraterrestrial presence and their superior technology that we have been emulating. In September 2005 he became  the first person of cabinet rank in the G8 group of countries to state unequivocally “UFO’s are as real as the airplanes flying overhead.”"  (internet reference (13-08-13):  The presentation of Paul Hellyer during the conference is based in particular on his plan and proposal to end the worldwide, financial crisis,  and is titled: "Global Hope: A Plan to End the Worldwide Financial Crises". This proposal can be downloaded from his website as a word file. In  addition, his lecture: "The G20 Fiddles While The Planet Burns", written especially for the Global B.E.M.-conference, can be found on the  website “Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization” (internet reference (13-08-13):  fiddles-while-the-planet-burns/5311648). More information can be found on the website:  Internetreferentie (13-08-13): In this article I will use a large number of quotations from this proposal and from the presentation, as they have been put on paper by Hellyer.  And like in the two previous two articles I will add my own impressions, thoughts and question marks in the form of asides. These asides I will  give in green couloured text.  Aside. In this article wherever Paul Hellyer speaks about America, I will use the term North-America, except when it concerns quotations. For,  as Michael Tellinger said in his presentation: "The answers can be found in our language itself." (see: “Historical Cattle Kraals” and UBUNTU  Contributionism - Michael Tellinger (The Global B.E.M.-Conference - Part I)). America means to me the combination of South-, Central- and  North-America. That what is called the United States of North-America is therefore a small part of America. Yes, the word North-America is  longer and yes, it requires more paper, time and energy to use it. But North-America also is a more precise word, it indicates much more  accurate and precise, what we are talking about. In this way there is also the trend, perhaps out of sheer laziness, maybe also for quite  different reasons, to omit the punctuation out of all abbreviations. But with that United States has gone from U.S. to US, which stands for WE.  The same occurs in fact by omitting the points in the abbreviation for European Union, making this EU. What most Europeans probably do not  know, is that "eu" (pronounced yew) is the Romanian word for "I". The effects of the latter, if one believes in indoctrination by words and  language, are, because of this ignorance, less than the North-American US. But what if you grow up in a country, where "U.S. of America" in  principle reads: "WE of America"?  The necessity of the U-turn and the Golden Rule  Paul Hellyer started his lecture by asking: "What would you do if someone knocked on your door and said, “Your house is on fire”?" That is,  according to him, the situation, as it exists today, with regard to the warming of the Earth, our home planet.  "Yet world leaders seem to be in denial of both the urgency and magnitude of the danger. Instead, G20 leaders have spent most of their  energy trying to rescue a handful of privately-owned banks. Worse, they spend far too much time looking for new sources of oil to extend the  present disastrous trajectory." What do governments do in fact? They steer a bit to the right, maybe also they steer a bit to the left, but they keep driving towards the  abyss. However, a U-turn is needed. Away from the abyss. A U-turn is needed for almost every policy decision.  According to Hellyer we should concentrate exclusively on Breakthrough Energy. Although, as he says, he himself is no expert in this area, but  in the area of politics, foreign affairs and money. His education and training are in the field of the latter. His attention is therefore focused on  the question how to pay for the huge shift from fossil fuels to clean energy, which can save the Earth. According to him politics needs to  support the 99%. He calls this, building the Kingdom of God on Earth, or whatever name someone else wants to give to it. This requires a  change in consciousness. Away from the ego. This means:  "...a world where every child has adequate food to eat, potable water to drink, a decent shirt on his or her back, a roof over his or her head,  adequate health care and sufficient free education to develop skills and prepare for a productive and fulfilling life."  Despite the great conflict between many god beliefs and religions, they all have one rule in common. The Golden Rule. This Golden Rule is:  "To treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated." It would have to be this rule according to which we all should live.  Aside. This Golden Rule is stated also as: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others" It is at the same time also the  philosophy of UBUNTU, about which Michael Tellinger spoke in his presentation and which states: "If it's not good for everyone, it's no good at  all" (see: “Historical Cattle Kraals” and UBUNTU Contributionism - Michael Tellinger (The Global B.E.M.-Conference - Part I)).   "To achieve a more just world of peace and prosperity, it will be essential for nation states to effect a massive change in priorities, especially  the world powers. They must end the arms race and direct the hundreds of billions in savings, to those pursuits that would enhance the  quality of life for people everywhere. The highly educated military and scientific personnel who would no longer be needed to develop new  weapons systems, should be recruited for these same humanitarian projects including, of course, joining the war against global warming for  the benefit of their grandchildren and great grandchildren as well as ours.  While the cooperation of all major powers will be essential, it is the United States, which has assumed the role of world leader, that will have  to take the initiative."  Aside. Most western people tend to accept the idea proposed in the last sentence. But I think it is time that we abandon the idea that North-  America is the leader of the world, or has to be. At present the biggest problem lies there. What as a matter of fact emerges also from the  continuation of Hellyer's presentation. North-America has about 315 million inhabitants. Their so-called allies will possibly count around 2  billion humans (the European Union has just over half a billion people), but the Earth has 7 billion humans. As long as we keep following and  playing this game of allocating leadership to one country, we are on the wrong path. We need the leadership of every human on Earth, from  every corner, from every hamlet, from every place on Earth.  Hellyer continues his presentation with the observation that it was Eisenhower, who warned for the military-industrial complex.  Aside. Hellyer here refers to the farewell address of Dwight D. Eisenhower as president of the United States of North-America in 1961. With  the military-industrial complex is meant, according to the Dutch Wikipedia:  Military-industrial complex  The military-industrial complex is a combining of interests of the political leadership, the military leadership and the arms industry. Often, but not always, the term is  associated with the United States. The phrase was first used by the former president of the United States and general Dwight D. Eisenhower. In his farewell speech as  president on January 17 1961 he warned Americans for an interweaving of the interests and the influence of the military-industrial complex.   One speaks of a military-industrial complex when the following phenomena occur:  - A strong lobby by representatives of the military industry  - Numerous personal contacts between representatives of the army, politics and the arms industry - Politicians or high military, who fulfill functions in the arms industry  Internet reference (14-08-13) (My own translation):  In this farewell address of Eisenhower it is also stated:  "...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The  potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.  We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense  with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.  Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution,  research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal  government.  Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new  electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present  and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger  that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. (Bold added as emphasis by me). It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming  toward the supreme goals of our free society." Internet reference (13-18-13):  Here we have again the core of the problem, which was pointed out again and again during the three-day conference, next to other usage of  energy and other sources of energy: The Centralisation of Power and how to avoid this and reverse this. Here, stated by a resigning president  of the United States of North-America more than 60 years ago. Paul Hellyer wants to come to a decentralisation of power, by dividing the  power over the money between governments and banks. Between public (national) and private banks.    End the arms race. Use the highly educated military and scientists for benefits for humanity, advocates Paul Hellyer. The world for one  moment had the chance to stop this arms race. That was at the fall of the Berlin Wall. The prospects for many countries in Europe, for North-  America and for other countries were dazzling. It was the opportunity of a lifetime. The time to change a lot for the better.  "There was much talk of a peace dividend. Without any enemies of military significance, the Western countries, and the U.S. in particular,  could reduce expenditures for armaments and divert the savings to myriad essential priorities including health care, education, environmental  protection including sustainable growth, and the development of new sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. There would also be more  money for the arts and the alleviation of poverty and illiteracy on a global basis. The prospects were dazzling in their scope and diversity. It  was a unique and God-given opportunity for a new, braver and fairer world."  "We blew it!"  "We blew it! We blew the chance of a lifetime to do good things! A small group of zealots undermined our golden opportunity to pursue peace,  not war. Little did we dream that they had a vastly different “vision” of the New World Order."  Then the destruction of the Twin Towers in the United States of North-America followed. And the world was furious: "...and for a few days  America had the sympathy of almost everyone including the Islamic states. It was the kind of atmosphere where it would have been possible  to uproot al-Qaeda with a police and intelligence operation. Instead, the “Cabal” of military, industrial, banking and intelligence interests,  decided to use the terrible tragedy as an excuse to launch their war on Iraq, even though there was not one shred of evidence that the Iraqis  had been involved in the events of 9/11, either directly or indirectly."  The antipathy against the North American policy "...has nothing to do with democracy versus dictatorship, or wealth, or freedom of religion  and assembly. ...In short, American foreign policy was the root of the conflict. The U.S. will have to do an about turn in order to end its  decades old practice of interfering in almost every country of any significance. But it would save them a lot of money, and many U.S. and  foreign lives, if they began a new regime of genuine cooperation as a substitute for military and economic domination. This means a complete  abandonment of their dark side, the greed and self-centredness of their leaders; their false gods; their double standards; the increasing  disparity in income between rich and poor; and, finally, their callous attitude toward the poor and the powerless."  "In reality the banks have changed the world into one monstrous pawnshop" - Financial leverage  Hellyer says that almost all of his life he has had an interest in banking and money. His favourite subject at school was therefore economy. At  the time he asked his professors if depressions and recessions were really necessary. He did not like their answer: "Yes, they are necessary,  read your history." He concluded himself that not one of them was necessary. All of them are money phenomena caused by the system. He  wanted to change this and therefore tried to get into politics. He succeeded in 1949. In 1950 the Corean war followed and no depression took  place. The system seemed to work till the 1960s. Then the inflations started. Caused by powerful unions and industries, which used their  power to influence the system. To keep the inflation under control an idea of Milton Friedman was put into practice. The consequence was that  the I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) started to act as a police officer against inflation. From that moment, by a small group of banks,  money was no longer lent to countries for almost nothing. The consequence was that humans were squeezed out of their jobs, their houses  and everything else and that a mess arose.  As the start in history for the problems with money, Hellyer points to the moment when king William III of England needed money to be able  to fight against France. He lent this money from the "Bank of England", with a paper as countervalue, which could not be loaned once but  twice.  Aside. Hellyer means king William III of Engeland, Prince of Orange and stadtholder William III of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelre and  Overijssel of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (internet reference (13-08-13):  van_Oranje-Nassau and:  On the Dutch Wikipedia the following can be found about the story in the article about the "Bank of England":  ...History The bank was founded in 1694 as the banker of the British government under the then kingdom of William III, king of England and stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland,  Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel. The highest functionary of the institution is the Governor. Since 2003 this position is held by the economist Mervyn King.  During the 17th-century wars between Holland and England the English got so impressed by the workable forms, which the Dutch used, that they copied them from A to Z.  In this way the country also (temporary) became a republic in 1653 and in 1666 took up the minting of a free currency. Due to the insufficient supply of gold and silver to  mint coins and insufficient incoming tax revenue, new ways were sought for filling out the money system.  In 1688 William III was promised the throne of England if he gave the ruling bankers the right to give out money. His doubt about this was removed because he was  allowed to borrow as much as he wanted at 8% interest and the banknotes got the inscription "The Bank of England - redeemable (exchangeable for) in Gold or  Silvercoins". In this way in 1694 the Bank of England (BoE) was founded, which in turn became an example for the banks on the continent. The brain behind this was  William Patterson; a leading banker. He agreed to provide the king with gold from his own bank reserve and paper money, to become in this way the only banker of the  English treasury. Thus the Bank of England became a private enterprise.  A notable provision in the founding statute was "The Bank hath benefit on the interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing". Partly because of this, the  Government could finance its activities by borrowing money in this way, instead of exercising its right to give it out themselves. And so the phenomenon of public debt  was institutionalised....  Internet reference (16-08-13) (My own translation):    In his proposal Hellyer says about this: "Sovereign governments, as a matter of expediency, licenced privately-owned corporations to create  money for public and private uses. These institutions (banks) were allowed to take deposits, of course, and to lend these funds, at interest.   They were also permitted to create or manufacture money in what became known as the "partial reserve system of banking." They  consistently lent more than they had in their vaults, and got away with it because only a few depositors came in to collect their cash at any  one time.   The scam had been legitimized when the Bank of England was chartered to help King William finance his war. Rich people subscribed  £1,200,000 in gold and silver, as capital, to found the bank, which then was lent to the government at 8 percent. To show his appreciation,  the King allowed the bank to print £1,200,000 in banknotes and lend them at high interest rates. In effect, the bank was allowed to lend the  same money twice - once to the government and once to the people."  Aside. This is called "leverage". Also "financial leverage":  Financial Leverage 1. To use debt to finance an activity. For example, one usually borrows money in the form of a mortgage to buy a house. One commonly refers to this as leveraging the  house. Likewise, one leverages when one uses a margin in order to purchase securities.  2. The amount of debt that has been used to finance activities. A company with much more debt than equity is generally called "highly leveraged." Too much leverage is  often thought to be unhealthy, but many firms use leverage in order to expand operations. (Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved)  Internet reference (13-08-13):  I have tried to understand and translate above explanation of the concept into Dutch, but I do not come further than that "financial leverage"  means or "paying with debt" or the translation is more or less "financial lever-effect (the ratio between own and foreign capital of a business  (in accounting))". But in the current article about this on the Dutch Wikipedia the word debt is not even mentioned:  Financieel hefboomeffect (financial leverage) The financieel hefboomeffect (Financial leverage) also called degree of financial leverage stems from the presence of fixed financial costs. Financial leverage makes use of  the fixed financial costs for increasing the effects of the operating result or EBIT and earnings per share in the company. An increase in the EBIT leads through the use of  solid financial costs to an above-average increase in earnings per share of the business. A decrease in EBIT works vice versa on earnings per share.  Internet reference (15-08-13) (My own translation):  According to the same website "The Free Dictionary by Farlex" debt is:  Debt Any money owed to an individual, company, or other organization. One acquires debt when one borrows money. Generally speaking, one acquires debt for a specific  purpose, such as funding a college education or purchasing a house. In business and government, debt is often issued in the form of bonds, which are tradeable securities  entitling the bearer to repayment at the appropriate time(s). Occasionally, especially for personal loans, debt is issued without interest or other compensation; one simply  pays back what was lent. This is exceedingly rare in business and a debtor almost always compensates a creditor with a certain amount of interest, representing the time  value of money. However, some areas of finance, especially Islamic banking, do not allow debt with interest. (Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights  Reserved)  Internet reference (13-08-13):  This is, according to me, one of the very many examples of language abuse and word play. By obscuring the word debt in all kinds of ways  and with all kinds of terms and words, like mortgage, advance and credit, it seems less painful and less dangerous than it is. In the end  though everyone in the western world is pushed his and her entire life into debt with such terms, so that they must follow the other rules of  the so-called society and have no right to participate in deciding what the rules are. Debt is slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.  Homebuyers are perhaps the best example. But one tries to force tenants of houses systematically in the same position too, as is apparent  from the latest plans of the so-called Dutch political leader Rutte.  Financial leveraging means as much as that with a mortgage on a house, a human lives the major part of his life on the basis of more foreign  capital than on his own capital. And that by working 30 or 40 years for this he can tip the levereage   or balance step after step to a total own capital. At least if he ever gets the chance and if he ever  reaches the age at which it will finally take place. The translation of "leverage" into Dutch though is  also: exploit, squeeze, to take advantage of, authority, power and influence. "Financial leverage" then  becomes: financially exploit, squeeze, to take advantage of, and have authority, power and influence  on the basis of finances. In this meaning the same homebuyer is a money slave to others until he or  she has paid off the house. These others have "leverage" over him and her. The same reason why  tenants are forced step after step in the same direction. The terms "leverage" and "financial  leverage" are therefore no more than so-called politically correct and euphemistic terms for what the  actual truth is. And this is, euphemistically said, politically a very incorrect situation.  The last sentence of the quotation: "Financial Leverage", I see as the most bizarre one ever written,  by so-called intelligent, and, of which they like to boast about, unimaginative mathematicians: “Too  much “leverage” (read debt) is often thought to be unhealthy, but many firms use “leverage” (read  debt) in order to expand operations." Not only it is the summum of stating the obvious to say, that  too much debt is unhealthy, but bizarrely fanciful is the idea that one can use an amount of debt to  expand activities or to do investments. How far this "financial leverage" of the guild of accounting  artists and financial economic magicians goes, is illustrated by the science fiction writer Robert  Sheckley, who in 1952 already wrote the story: "Cost of Living", a story about a man, who sells the  future of his son in exchange for the enjoyment of the use of modern conveniences during his own  life time (internet reference (13-08-13): 29458/29458-h/29458-  h.htm). It appeared in Dutch in 1968, in the collection: "Van Aardse smetten vrij" (Free of Terrestrial  blemishes), published in the series Zwarte Beertjes, number 1163, by A.W. Bruna en Zoon, Utrecht,  Antwerpen). Here we see the world topsy-turvy, in which the writer of fantasy is very well aware of  what is the reality, while the economy-mathematicians float around in the most peculiar world of  fantasy and try to pull the rest of the world therein too.     Up