Polish Bail-In Changes Everything

Ingesting the daily pablum from the Corporate Media is inevitably a two-stage process. First one reads the lines. Then one reads between the lines. When dealing with serial liars; it is always when one reads between-the-lines that “the news” gets interesting.

Case in point is the bail-in maneuver recently announced by the government of Poland, leading to the immediate question: when is a bail-in not a “bail-in”? The Polish government refused to characterize its taking control of financial assets as a bail-in when it defended this move. The Corporate Media (agents of the One Bank) refused to call it a bail-in in harshly criticizing the government’s actions.

We have the government of Poland refusing to call this act of financial piracy a “bail-in” (despite knowing precisely what it is doing) because it is expedient for it to do so. Conversely, we have the One Bank (via the Corporate Media) also refusing to call this maneuver a “bail-in” (despite understanding exactly what is taking place) because it is also expedient for it to do so. And so we see this pair engaged in this public display of “tap-dancing.”

The critical clue in sifting through the deceptive language of Reuters as it describes this scenario comes in the following excerpt:

…Polish officials have tried to reassure investors, saying that the overhaul avoids the more radical options of taking both bond and equity assets away from the private funds outright.  [emphasis mine]

Too funny!

In making this statement, we see an unequivocal illustration that the government of Poland fully understands the Golden Rule in the Crime Syndicate financial system of the 21st century which has been imposed on us by the One Bank:

Control is superior to ownership with respect to any asset.

Indeed, this is a point which I made in subtle, implicit terms in a previous commentary ( https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/one-bank  ), The One Bank – but where I lacked the space to delve into this critical distinction explicitly. When I wrote about this “single, banking monopoly”; it was scrupulously noted that this shadowy entity (or “super-entity” in the words of the Swiss researchers) controlled rather than “owned” 40% of the global economy.

What is the legal (and factual) distinction between “ownership” and “control”? Why is control now superior to (mere) ownership? The answer to the first question has always been simple and apparent. The answer to the second question has become apparent – thanks to the recent crimes of the One Bank, and its Minions.

Ownership (by itself) neither explicitly or implicitly confers anything other than “legal title” of the asset in question. Control, on the other hand, directly implies legal and/or physical possession of the asset(s) in question. Why is control now actually superior to ownership?

In societies which respect and uphold the Rule of Law, ownership (i.e. legal title) reigns supreme. However, several years ago the One Bank assassinated the Rule of Law in most Western regimes – while our Puppet Governments sat back and watched.

It has now demonstrated the reality of that assassination with several blatant financial crimes, which its Stooges in the Corporate Media (and our own governments) have the audacity to call “precedents”. The pattern is as clear and obvious as it is repugnant.

The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on. Presto! The financial entity (i.e. Bank) which used to only “control” particular financial assets now “owns” those assets. The (former) Owner – who lacked control – ends up with nothing. The perfect crime.

MF Global? The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on? Presto! MF Global now “owns” the assets of its account-holders…which it then hands to its “creditor” – The One Bank. PFG Best? The same thing. The Cyprus Steal? The same thing.

The lights go out. Banksters (i.e. the One Bank) end up “owning” assets; while the (former, legal) Owners end up with nothing. Not only do the Corporate Media and our Puppet Governments lack the integrity to identify and stop this stealing; they continue to call the thefts “precedents”.

Repeat again (and again and again), until the One Bank goes from a paltry “40% control” of the global economy to 100% ownership. The perfect crime…until the government of Poland came along and upset its apple-cart.

The Polish government has taken control of a large chunk of the nation’s pensions assets (wresting it from the vice-like grip of the One Bank); and in doing so the One Bank’s familiar “two-step” now has a very different ending.

The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on. Et voila! With the Polish government controlling these assets before the lights went out; it is the Polish government which will own these assets (on behalf of the Polish people) when the lights come back on – not the One Bank.

Naturally the One Bank is livid, and so its drones in the mainstream media launch their predictable (and laughably hypocritical) attacks on this move:

…the changes may be unconstitutional because the government is taking private assets away from them without offering any compensation.

Bravo! We have the Corporate Media (and thus the One Bank itself) explaining the principal nature of its own crimes with MF Global, PFG Best, the Cyprus Steal, and its endless list of intended future Victims. “Taking” private assets “without compensation”; or as those who prefer plain talk might say: stealing.

But note the very, very important legal distinction here; one not available to the One Bank as a defense to its own crimes. The Polish government is not “taking private assets…without compensation” in the legal sense; because as it is careful to note itself, it ‘merely’ has control of these assets – not ownership (i.e. legal title).

Conversely, with each-and-every one of the One Bank’s “precedents”; bankers ended up owning assets. The assets were unequivocally “taken without compensation” – stolen. And thus we now have a delightful no-win scenario (for the One Bank) as the move by the government of Poland creates a new precedent.

Suddenly the world of bail-ins becomes a two-way street; not merely Banksters stealing, and everyone else being Victims. Suddenly we see a scenario where the Banksters are on the “giving” rather than “receiving” side of the equation – the most-horrific nightmare of the One Bank.

Only two things can happen here. First of all; the government of Poland can be slapped-down by some (corrupt) judge, ruling that even taking mere control of financial assets (without compensation) is “unconstitutional” or otherwise illegal. The new precedent? Bail-ins (all bail-ins) are illegal.

The other possibility is that this move is upheld as being nice-and-legal. In that scenario, the dynamics are equally obvious. What has the government of Poland really done here? As the entity in control of all of these financial assets; in the next (inevitable, staged) “financial crisis” it has made itself rather than private banks Too Big To Fail.

When the next “crisis” occurs; as the controlling entity it is the government of Poland which will require a “bail-out” (and now a “bail-in”), which simply means that when the lights come on and the stealing stops that as the Too Big To Fail entity it will now “own” any/all surviving assets – on behalf of the people of Poland.

How long before other sovereign (non-corrupt) governments engage in a similar preemptive move, because they decide that they – and not the One Bank’s subsidiaries – should be Too Big To Fail? The Polish bail-in changes everything.

Jeff Nielson

www.bullionbullscanada.com