The austerity measures that have plunged Greece into civil unrest not seen in decades has passed their parliament.  The vote came down to 155 for, 145 against.  This is a sad day for anyone who thinks a nation’s sovereignty shouldn’t be bought and sold by banks and neighboring nations.  Pay attention, because this is coming to America in the not too distant future.

These loans were provided under a corrupt and undemocratic system.  Common law going back to the Revolutionary War states that when a loan is provided knowing it cannot be paid back for the purpose of enslaving an individual, repayment is not required.  These principals must and should apply to nation states as well.  Obviously there’s a lot of blame to go around and Greece will have to endure a lot of pain for their part in the general corruption, but the banks too must take a “haircut.” The loss of sovereignty in everything except name isn’t an acceptable alternative.

Just to give you an idea of how long it will take for Greece to pay back these loans, from a Bloomberg editorial out today:

“Even if Greece gets its bailout and its economy rebounds, the government would have to run a budget surplus, excluding debt-service costs, of 5 percent of GDP for about three decades to bring down debt to the 60 percent maximum allowed by euro- area rules. Achieving such a fiscal feat for even five years is extremely rare for any government, let alone Greece’s.”

That’s just to satisfy the requirements for entering the Eurozone.  Under this impossible fantasy scenario, they still wouldn’t be debt free.

As Charles Hugh Smith of the blog Of Two Minds notes, Greece is a Kleptocracy.  The term literally means, “rule by thieves.”  Here are the basic elements of a Kleptocracy.

(1) A government subject to control fraud
(2) that takes advantage of governmental corruption
(3) to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class
(4) via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population
(5) sometimes without even the pretense of honest service.

This is exactly what has happened in Greece.  Elites operating in Greece (many of whom pay no taxes) promoted the easy money policies that they benefit the most from.  When its time to pay up, the losses are socialized and regular people pay.  Yes, we must all honor our obligations to pay our debts, but what should be the end result when those debts are forced on us by self interested bankers and elites working in collusion to rob the people?

The debt crisis in Greece has prompted the sell off of public assets to private corporations and other foreign nations.  Formerly public beaches, natural resources, seaports, land, and utilities like trains, power and water are being sold off to private enterprises at drastically reduced values to help pay off a debt that cannot realistically be paid.  Privatization of public industries doesn’t improve service or prices for the people when they are a monopoly, as these will be.  The result will be a tragic deterioration in all elements of Greek society.

STRATFOR reports that the demands for privatization is being driven by foreign nations looking to acquire assets on the cheap.

“It presents opportunities for other countries to gain assets at below market value… Greeks see the forced privatization drive as a loss of sovereignty and a plot by Berlin to cheaply acquire control of lucrative companies.  China would use the Greek ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki to bring its goods to the Balkans, former Soviet countries like Ukraine and Belarus, and Central European EU states like Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.  Russia is interested in using Greece to block a key European alternative route for natural gas supplies.”

This is what it means to be in debt slavery — your life, freedom, sovereignty, property, all are subservient to the debt collectors’ demands. Rest assured, this is only the beginning of the sacking of Greece and the free world in general.  Is it fair that a nation with 25 percent unemployment must accept austerity so banks can get paid for loans that never should have been provided?

When we can’t pay, they’ll come back for more and more demanding we liquidate our entire national inheritance to honor a set of commitments they’ve forced us into through control of the system.

Early yesterday morning, the Wall Street Journal posted an editorial by Timo Soini, a Finish politician and Euro-skeptic who opposes the European central bank led effort to bail out Portugal.  In the editorial, Soini criticizes the bank bailouts and weak willed politicians who support them.  He writes:

“The official wisdom is that Greece, Ireland and Portugal have been hit by a liquidity crisis, so they needed a momentary infusion of capital, after which everything would return to normal. But this official version is a lie, one that takes the ordinary people of Europe for idiots. They deserve better from politics and their leaders…

The elite in Brussels will seek to enforce unanimity through pressure when it cannot be obtained by persuasion. Abolishing unanimity is only a matter of time. After that we have a full-fledged fiscal transfer union that is obviously in hock to Brussels’ anti-growth corporatism.”

This is what was written on the WSJ website yesterday, and was copied by several anti-central bank blogs and other websites.  Finish newspapers also have the entire article available in full.  but if you check now, you’ll see these and several other statements have been altered or removed all together.  The article is still there, but much of its language critical of the banks are missing. There’s no doubt that just like in the United States in 2008, the central banks of Europe have a lot to gain from some kind of forced government bailout.

While the original article is no longer available on the WSJ website, we know it was originally posted as such because it was copied, pasted and linked on numerous news websites and blogs yesterday. To be fair, some of the alterations are cosmetic or simply an alteration of style. Some of the changes improve the readability of the piece in general, but the inflammatory rhetoric criticizing the banks has been removed as well.

This may be nothing, but it seems a highly questionable decision. Considering the Wall Street Journal’s past willingness to alter or flat out delete articles at the request of our own central bank, The Federal Reserve, when they were accused of having a conflict of interest worth millions in Goldman Sachs stock value, and you can understand my reluctance to accept this as an honest mistake.  It’s also possible the author himself requested the changes, but that is really stretching it.  It would be the first time I’ve ever heard of such an alteration being approved after publication, but then again, I’ve never heard of the WSJ white-washing an editorial before either.

Soini’s condemnation of politicians who claim there is not enough liquidity in the financial sector is stunningly similar to our own situation here in America, where the Federal Reserve recently printed $600 billion in economic stimulus to boost stock values and increase “lending liquidity” or in other words, push Americans to go further in debt.

This probably isn’t something worth getting your pitchfork ready for, but it’s definitely something to keep an eye on. If the author or the WSJ makes any comments on this story, I will update.

Enjoy the before and after edits here:

WSJ Revisionism

In Foreign Policy Magazine today, associate editor and author Joshua Keating asks, “Since when does the CIA need a country’s permission to spy on it?”  Pakistan has recently demanded that the CIA withdraw its agents from their territory and that the United States cease drone attacks within its borders, exemplifying new tensions between the nations.

“Since when does the CIA need a country’s permission to conduct intelligence operations?” Keating said.  “Isn’t the whole point that the local government isn’t supposed to know they’re there?”  The answer to that question has more historical significance than the author probably realizes.

Certainly nations working with the CIA to track non-state actors or terrorist within their borders can reap benefits for both sides, but what about unsolicited spying by the CIA?  Despite popular belief, the CIA’s charter seriously limits the agency’s authority to conduct clandestine operations.  While it isn’t explicit, it is clear that Congress had no intention of allowing the CIA to conduct its own covert operations, that those operations would be rare and would be limited to the military.

According to the charter, the CIA may “perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the National Security as the NSC may from time to time direct.”  This is the only point at which the charter comes close to granting the CIA authority outside of traditional intelligence gathering.  This does not allow them to conduct covert operations, but that is how CIA directors have chosen to interpret the law ever since Allen Dulles, who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961.

Understand that until that time, covert operations in foreign lands were considered acts of war.  It wasn’t until after World War II and the creation of the CIA that clandestine operations such as these became much more commonplace.  But even as the Cold War escalated through the 1950s and 1960s, clandestine operations were frowned upon.  The United States regularly criticized the Soviet Union for manipulating the local politics of other nations, that is at least until The Bay of Pigs invasion disaster destroyed all credibility in that realm.

Regardless, the concept that the CIA can spy on another nation they are not currently at war with without their permission is a relatively new concept.  It was long considered a dangerous precedent.

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who served under the Joint Chiefs of Staff and worked with the CIA from 1955 to 1964 documents this period of time quite thoroughly in his book, The Secret Team.   Prouty states:

“In the world family of nations, sovereignty is one of the key conditions of existence, and sovereignty is inviolate. Even if we talk about some small country such as Monaco or Luxembourg, the code of nations regards their sovereignty to be as precious as that of the United States or the USSR. The day this code breaks down will be the beginning of the end of world order and of a return to the rule of brute force. Liberty begins as the aspiration of the individual, and sovereignty is the measure of the absolute power of a state. As we look around us today, we see an erosion of this fundament of international society.”

Indeed, Prouty recognized how pernicious the extent of American power had become under the CIA, which at the time, was still fairly novel.  Now, we expect, perhaps even demand that the CIA discard the sovereignty of other nations regardless of the circumstances.  But in response to Mr. Keeting’s question, “since when do we need permission?”  The answer is simple.  We haven’t needed permission since we became an empire.