$43 trillion lawsuit; CNBC reporting fallout

I’m sure many of you have seen the news articles surrounding a VP at CNBC’s children being murdered late this prior week.

There was a report the day before on CNBC that detailed a lawsuit by a private law firm that was filed and served to a long list of financial institutions and people that are being accussed of laundering 43 trillion dollars. The court gave the defendants 20 days to respond with proper paperwork. (It includes Eric Holder, Robert Rubin, JP Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). You can scroll to page 315 of the document (page 325 of the pdf) to see the claims made by the plaintiffs regarding the procedure of money laundering. Banking cartel? Yes, yes it is.

Following the death of the CNBC VP’s children the original article was taken down. Here it is in screenshots.

Needless to say conspiracy theories are abound. You can put them together yourself.

LOL - it looks like a prank article to me. The diction is not that of a professional journalist - doom might impend, but court cases merely pend.

The comments are a riot: “freeze the assets of the Rothchild’s!” Please, do tell, how do you propose to go about that? It was a major victory for the IRS to force UBS to turn over account information (not freeze the accounts) on 15,000 US citizens. UBS is a bank that does a big chunk of its business within the US and couldn’t afford to be kicked out of the country as USG was threatening to do if they didn’t fork over the info. There are multiple branches of the Rothschild dynasty (French, English, German, etc.) … if you put a gun to the head of Evelyn de Rothschild and told him to fork over a list of all the assets of the French Rothschilds, well, you’d just have to blow his brains out because he doens’t have that information. And each branch has their spread assets all over the globe in multiple jurisdictions. And, finally, the Rothschilds doubtless have unlimited clout with the Israeli government. Mossad is only a phone call away and they can make people, well, “disappear”. These amateurs don’t even know what they’re talking about.

Just to be clear, the Rothschilds are not even the most powerful people in the world … but they’re powerful enough that even the most powerful people in the world can’t just freeze their assets at will.

Clayton -

Who do you think that the most powerful people in the world are?

@Neodoxy: It’s difficult to say, though I’m sure the Rothschilds know. To give you an idea of people who are probably “one degree of removal” from the most powerful people in the world, I would recommend you watch this.

Basically, this is how I think about it. There are legitimate power structures - government, politicians, judges, police, military, and so on. Then there are illegitimate power structures - drug lords, urban gangs, money launderers, and so on. The most powerful people on either side are not the most powerful people in the world - in other words, the most powerful politician or the most powerful drug lord is not the most powerful person of all. Rather, the most powerful people in the world sit astride these two realms. They operate at will either through the legitimate apparatus of power (governments) or through the illegitimate apparatus of criminal kingpins. It’s all based on social connections, family connections, fraternal connections, ethnic/religious connections. In other words, it’s old-school.

There is a little bit of revolving door, as well. For example, I suspect that the “cream” of the special forces are often given an opportunity to “retire early” and enter the employ of superlatively powerful people… at a much higher rate of pay, of course. The key resume item required, though, is that the individuals in question be made-men. Straight-laced, “duty to God and country”-types (which there are many in the special forces) … need not apply. Of course, they call you, you don’t call them.

In the reverse direction, I think that the criminal elements are sometimes pulled in to assist superlatively powerful people in constructing complex criminal operations, like 9/11. How and when do you short the stocks of the airlines when you know that a major event is going to happen on X date? Best person to ask is someone who’s been to jail for insider trading and other complex paper crimes. How do you make sure that everyone has blood on their hands once the dust settles? Again, the best people to ask are organized crime types who only deal with others who have equal guilt on their hands. For example, watch a video showing all the top Bush administration officials pre-Iraq invasion claiming with 100.00% certainty that there are WMDs in Iraq. Then, look at their faces talking about it after it became clear there were no WMDs whatsoever in Iraq. Their facial expressions are fallen, defensive, apprehensive. Somebody’s getting led around by the nose.

The Rothschilds are not superlatively powerful. The family, as a whole, is definitely very rich. But you have to keep in mind that they are bankers, first and foremost. That’s what they specialize in. They might have developed other aptitudes over time - particularly with their involvment in Zionism and the birthing of the State of Israel - but they are newcomers to the game of ruling, relative to the European Elites.

In my opinion, superlative power is primarily held by the royal families of Europe (that still have one or more sitting monarchs) and perhaps some other royal families outside of Europe (it’s hard to tell how completely colonialism has succeed in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere), the Vatican, some in the merchant class (e.g. the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.)

The thing is that power is multi-faceted. Everything from your heredity to your social connections to your sexual habits to your past misdeeds of youth, and so on, potentially count in the struggle for power. Can you command respect from other powerful people? Well, if you’re nouveau riche, maybe not. Or if you’re of the wrong ethnic background. Or if you were exposed for some misdeed when you were young. And so on. OK, so you have a political movement. Can you handle mafia threats? If not, you’re not very powerful. OK, so you have organized criminal connections and you have a political movement. Could you be invaded by the Pentagon at will? Again, you’re still not that powerful.

Clayton -

I like how your reaction is to the ignorant user comments, on the third party site nonetheless, rather than the court briefing.

hahaah. Yeah. Assassins aren’t that controversial there are hundreds of them in Pakistan and they get paid roughly 700-1000 bucks per hit.

You are never clear as you’ve admitted that your statements are a priori praxeological deductions (as if that is a defense or corroboration at all) and you’re willing to go as far as telling people that you know the method and goals of the Queen of England. I guess since the article doesn’t have any praxeological analytical deductions that it doesn’t hold water,

And just to be clear, you have no fucking idea who are “the most powerful people in the world.” And you linked to Alex Jones. Wow. You’re a master of your craft…

The court case likely will not go anywhere as the figures are as high as the RIAA claims in lost sales. But, it is still interesting news.

You aren’t even familiar with the views of the Rothschilds today. God, you even started out making a claim that implies that you do know who the most powerful people are then you follow it pu with “it’s difficult to say” and provide scant circumstantial evidence to that claim. You are so full of shit and can spread it out into so much text…

Here we go. The Rothschilds aren’t superlatively powerful, it is the people that they loaned money to who have the real power. You might as well say Emmanuel Goldstein is the most powerful person because that is the level of accuracy that your claims have.

EDIT: RE: Alex Jones

DoD: Population Control Part Of US “Stability Operations” - Read this article and pay attention to the quotes, the claims, and the links.

Now read the link provided for that statement and find it…

DOD Augments Stability Operations With Partners, Private Sector

Notice how the implications from Alex Jones are that the DoD is centering their policy around “population control” and how the link provided for this claim contains nothing of the sort.

DoD Employs Blackwater For Population Stabilization Operations in Foreign Nations - Now read this and notice how it is based on the same DoD press release, but makes totally differnt conclusions from it…

Without a proper cite it is just fearmongering and/or bullshit spewing. Right, Clayton?

Alex Jones is a shyster, Clayton. True brethren, no?

Or they edited it out?

http://www.militaryavenue.com/Articles/DOD+Augments+Stability+Operations+with+Partners+Private+Sector-41176.aspx

Still contains the “population control” bit. And on a pro-military site. How about instead of derailing your own thread with foaming hatred for Alex Jones, just stick to what you already dug up. It was interesting enough.

Oh, and someone documented the reprint:

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/dod-memory-holed-their-own-press-release-changing-population-control-to-population-security-2486756.html

This link - http://www.militaryavenue.com/Articles/DOD+Augments+Stability+Operations+with+Partners+Private+Sector-41176.aspx - is not the DoD statement.

People are reading “population stability” to be referring to the growth rate which there is no indication of in the DoD PR statement. Even population control doesn’t necessarily refer to the growth rate (although it could). The DoD has published numerous things (as have many other think tanks) that use the word “depopulation” to refer to the things that Alex Jones refers to. Also, it is unlikely that private security contractors are the ones taking to the task of depopulation, that is for Baxter and Monsanto if anyone.

This is a more reasonable assertion anyway,

P.S. I didn’t derail the thread…someone else did.

No individual human being is all that powerful on his own: e.g. they all lose a fight against a large bear. : )

So we ought to begin by asking: which are the most powerful institutions in the world, and once that’s established, ask who controls those institutions.

Obviously, the most powerful institutions in the world are the national governments of the US and its allies in Western Europe - they conquered the world, and were the first to do so in human history. Of these, the most important are the US, Britain, and France. As I said, “the allies” conquered the world, but before that the US replaced Britain and assumed its imperial pretensions, and before that Britain conquered France. Hence, I look at the US as standing at the pinnacle of a power-structure that has been dominant since roughly 1815. It’s chief competitor thereafter was crushed 1914-1945. In each case, the old Greek proverb “after the war, make alliances” was honored. France became a British satellite, Britain an American satellite, and eventually Germany an American satellite too. I suppose Japan could be counted here as well.

The most powerful people in the world are those that control the US federal government. Increasingly, I view the State as essentially a device for coercive cartelization, and all the Leftist programmes and propaganda are merely subterfuge. It’s really a pretty simple operation at bottom. State polices cartel to prevent competition among its members, State blocks entry to new domestic firms, State institutes protectionist trade policy, State subsidizes demand for cartel’s product when it becomes elastic. Same thing over and over and over in every aspect of economic life touched by the State. Everything else is just to justify and protect that operation. To locate the center of power, look to the cartels: banking, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, standard labor unions, professional labor unions (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc), military contractors, automobiles, steel, etc.

Find out who has controlling interests in the important cartel-member corporations, and who controls the enormous number of NGOs that lobby government, select and train future politicians and bureaucrats, construct government policy, and generally direct public affairs behind the facade of democracy. I really don’t think it’s much of a mystery. Look at the banking interests represented in the creation of the Fed. Other than Warburg, who represented European banking (presumably Rothschild), everyone else fell neatly into the Rockefeller or Morgan camps, which were rivals from the late 19th century to around the FDR administration, after which point the Rockefeller interests became predominant. That continued post-war. The idea that Rockefeller is ancient history is ridiculous, probably the most obviously Rockefeller dominated Presidency in American history wasn’t some Republican in the late 19th century, but Jimmy Carter in the 70s. And it seems to me that the exact same power structure is dominant today, a lot of the exact same people for that matter. That’s not to say that Rockefeller is “the man,” as Rockefeller (or Morgan) always moved with a large number of other wealthy families, as a block. Rothbard called it a “flagship” with smaller ships sailing behind. That would be lesser financial interests, as well as many many families whose sons become lawyers at associated law firms, or enter the civil service and become ambassadors, or become politicians, etc.

…really, the mafia is a perfect analogy.

Warburg and Schiff were German bankers, not English. Morgan was English and more than likely was the one fronting for the Rothschilds at the time. The Germans and the Americans (Warburg, Schiff, Harrimann, and Rockefeller) were allied against the English (morgan and presumably the Rothschild’s money as well as a few lesser known English monied families).

Where are you getting this? Nelson Alrich’s (passage of the FED RES Act fame) grandon Nelson Rockefeller was VP for Ford and left office when Carter came into power. Nixon (and Reagan for that matter) looks more like a Rockefeller oriented politician than Carter. You can tell because the methods of foreign policy shift from Kissinger’s invasion and bombing method to the proxy warfare that Bzrezinski is known for.

Frankly, the term ‘Rockefeller Republican’ was prominent around then. Carter and Obama are the only breaks form Kissinger’s neorealism in US foreign policy (‘neoconsrvatism’ is a form of ‘neorealism’ and is different from the original ‘realism’ that came with Eisenhower which Obama and Carter more accurately represent). I think you should reread your Rothbard. Then, maybe, read K. Waltz and J. Ickenberry.

So what? Rothschild wasn’t only English banking.

I’ve heard that suggested, and it makes sense to me (his father was an English banker), but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of a connection.

I’m not sure how we would quantify Rockefellerishness of Presidents, kind of an inexact science. I don’t disagree at all with what you’re saying about Ford and Nixon, but as far as Carter is concerned, I’m referring to the fact that Carter himself as well as many prominant members of his adminstration were also members of the Trilateral commision (=Rockefeller). This was well known at the time, it actually became a signifant issue for Reagan during his campaign, as people asked him whether he too would put so many Trilaterals in his adminstration. See this article from 1977, which lays out the basic facts.

Well there were five Rothschild children that went off to other countries after the father took over the English system.

Warburg and Schiff were forces behind the German central bank and it doesn’t really make sense that they would choose to side with the Americans and fight against themselves (or their handlers) in America. And if it was his goal, then he helped to destroy the Morgan banks…which brings us to,

Yeah, Rothbard never mentions the Rothschilds in his History of Money and Banking. He only alludes to Morgan’s associations with the Bank of England (which obviously has Rothschild all over it) through Montagu Norman and the CFR (which Morgan’s layer and banking partners started after he died to promote FED behavior toward the Bank of England - bailing out the Pound Sterling after WWI). And further, not all of the Rothschild banking children were successful. I can’t remember if it was the ones that went to Germany or France that failed first…

RE: Carter

Yes Rothbard covers the Carter administration in his Wall St., Banks, and American Foreign Policy. The TC was started by David Rockefeller, Bzrezinski, and, I think Carter, and Bush Sr. So, while the interests aren’t dominating in the application of foreign policy they are still prominent in financial dealings.

Nice link

Heres one of mine on the TC (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2624379/antony-sutton#download)

Certainly there was business between Morgan and Rothschild, what I don’t see is much evidence that Morgan was subordinate to Rothschild, that Morgan was in the Rothschild ambit, as opposed to a peer who may from time to time have allied with Rothschild. Protecting the pound could have been Morgan coming to the aid of Rothschild, or it could have been simply Morgan helping Morgan, since he’d invested heavily in British bonds.

…I’m not following your argument.

Rothbard makes the case that the German and American bankers were fundamentally at odds with the English bankers (FDR even says that the German and English financial interests were at war in the US). From this it does not follow that Warburg was on the side of the Rothschilds (as they were primarily English interests).

Gotcha. I don’t know much about Warburg qua German banker, I’m only familiar with him for his role in helping to create the Fed. I merely assumed that he had Rothschild connections because Rothschild was so dominant in European banking.

On another note, I tend to think that the creation of the Fed and of the income tax just in time to finance America’s involvement in WWI wasn’t accidental, nor do I think the war itself came about by blundering, as the story now goes. This makes me wonder what a German banker like Warburg was doing in pushing for the Fed. Any thoughts? If, as you suggest, Morgan was in league with Rothschild, then we have Warburg working hard to advance the Morgan-Rothschild interest in creating the Fed.

Rothbard says that this was a compromise becuase all parties realized the beneficial aspects of the FED’s creation. He also tells the story of how the Morgan forces were quick to assume control of the NY Fed as it was the most powerful arm of the system (dealing with international transfers). Only with FDR and Glass-Steagall does the NY Fed’s power get transferred to the FOMC (FOMC is created during one of the new deal banking acts) in Washington which the Rockefeller interests had pushed for as a means to equilibrate the influence of the regional banking factions.

Glass-Steagall also tore apart the Morgan “fusion” banks (the combination of investment and commercial banks). The Rockefellers had National City Trust (investment) and National City Bank (commercial) so it was less effected by the onslaught of the new legislation than the Morgan banks who were crippled by it.

I think the Rockefellers and Rothschilds have worked together, but they are not “partners” in this sense or aspect of policy.

Does controversy matter to a private interest who is not subject to public scrutiny like a political official is?

Goal: Preservation and expansion of the power of the “Windsor” family. Or are you going to suggest that the Queen is unlike every other human being who has ever lived and that she genuinely places the interests of others - including her mortal enemies around the world - ahead of her own? Get real.

Methods: Any necessary.

Wasn’t that the first thing I said? I don’t know who they are for sure. Particularly since the rise of the merchant class since the 19th century and the nouveau riche in America and other parts of the world, many of whom have seized control of entire territorial governments. Whether these powers have been submitted to more long-established ruling colonial powers, I don’t know. That’s one of the things that complicates it.

What that they hate the State of Israel and think it is an abomination. Come on!

I’ve never claimed that my thoughts are anything more than inference from scant factual evidence. There isn’t exactly a “Forbes 400 most powerful people in the world.”

Um, the royal Elites of Europe simply outsourced the money-fiddling to the Rothschilds. The money to pay the “loans” have always come from the taxpayers anyway. It’s not like the Rothschilds can kneecap the King if he doesn’t pay up. So, who, really, is the master in this exchange?

Clayton -

Yep, that’s my understanding as well.

i inferred your initial point as saying that it is unlikely that bankers offed the children of the CNBC exec.

I faintly remember you making claims about the methods with no proof., I am in agreeance with your power stipulation. I find your method-analysis wanting.

The first thing you said was that you were sure that the Rothschilds were not at the top. But, if you don’t know who is, then they could still be at the top. You don’t know.

i don’t know about the youngest Rothchild, but the middle one despises politics and avoids meetings with politicians.

I know. And when your claims get very far out there and you have no facts, then you can’t possibly synthesize it into future scenarios because you have no proof of prior claims. You don’t know what to build the motivational forces of the actors in wquestion on.

It is symbiotic which places the bankers at the same bargaining table as the Royals. You wouldn’t say that the Federal government can do anything without the FED. The Federal government “outsourced the money-fiddling” to the FED. The Bilderberg meetings should provide us with the names and the activity of the interests involved. The Royals act through…what? The British government and the PMs? The RIIA? MI-6? Banks? All of the above?

But, if you don’t know who is, then they could still be at the top.

Come on, I didn’t excpect fallacies of this kind from you. I may not know what is in your pocket, but I can be reasonably sure it is not a living elephant.

1.) Do I know you?

2.) What fallacy?