I am browsing DSK news stories again. It’s pretty obvious to me that the takedown of DSK was about one thing: putting Christine Lagarde in as head of the IMF. This reminded me that I was watching YouTube interviews of Lagarde a couple years back. So, I looked up one in particular which you may find very interesting. If you search through news archives, you will find that one of the recurring themes of Lagarde’s policies as French finance minister was about applying pressure against tax havens to conform to OECD rules. If you recall, the United States government did a takedown of UBS a while back, basically forcing them to cough up a list of all American account-holders on threat of being kicked out of the US completely. I think that installing Lagarde in the IMF is just an extension of this policy of battening down the global hatches. I speculate that DSK may have been part of an old guard that wanted to keep the tax havens for the small fish to sock away their illegal proceeds of political bribes and other criminal activity. But I think the globalists want to shut that all down, not because they care about dishonesty but because they are ready to roll out their final, global financial system. My opinion is that we’re going to see financial/political takedowns of the remaining tax havens in the very near future. This is Lagarde’s sole purpose.
I think the globalists have some kind of proposal for a global central bank that they’re keeping under wraps but I think it is stalling on the US economic crisis and its effect on the gold price, Greece, the Middle East revolutions and the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen agreement among other things. The globalists have a glut of new problems to solve: stop a break-up of the EU and keep Greece within the EU, try to resurrect a global carbon tax or cap & trade system, bring the Middle East to heel again and punish commodity speculators who are devaluing fiat currencies worldwide. Oh, and I don’t think it’s an accident that these problems are happening all of a sudden just now. It is my hunch that these problems are erupting precisely because there are defectors within the ranks of the globalists who do not want to see a global central bank established and are pulling strings to sabotage the whole thing from within. Or maybe I have an over-active imagination.
This. And this pretty much goes against much of Jones’ idea that every crisis, bust, and recession was planned and engineered by intentional design by the international, globalist and powerful small elite who are controlled and puppeteered by the huge and gigantic, multi-national mega-banks.
No, the fight against tax havens has been going on for quite awhile. Lagarde is just a French champagne Socialist replacing another French champagne Socialist with the added bonus of being a woman, something the PR machine always loves. Having a French at the head of the IMF is a not very subtle way of placing blame should the euro start to fall to pieces: after all it was the IMF which negotiated both the Greek and Portuguese bailout and Paris has always been the driving force behind the EU. You screw it up, you take the blame.
Of course the fight against the tax havens has been going on for quite a while… that’s the whole reason the OECD exists. But DSK’s takedown was particularly brutal and the Elites don’t do that to one another as long as everybody’s playing by the rules. Therefore, DSK was not playing by the rules. I believe he was resisting a “new direction” and I think this takedown was actually a year or two in planning since I distinctly remember Lagarde’s name coming up frequently enough in news reports during the economic crisis that I actually took the bother to watch YouTube interviews of her. Someone was promoting her already back in 2009. This tells me DSK did something wrong during/in response to the crisis. Given that Lagarde’s defining stance appears to be tax-haven crackdown, I suspect that DSK did not cooperate with tax-haven rules changes that the Elites had wanted to usher in during the crisis, for whatever reason.
It totally does not. It is just an internal power struggle. The banks and the system of insiders know when things will get worse. It is a mafia not a set in stone club of conspirators.
I think the DSK thing has more to do with NATO support and the Euro staying together with a shift of reserve currency.
@Clayton, sure the globalists want the tax havens shut down so they can consolidate that power, but i think DSK was taken down so that the IMF would be more supportive of the US dollar and less encouraging of the Euro. French politics has Sarkozy as basically a CIA informant and CIA partner (his whole family for decades) and DSK would likely have replaced him.
You are probably right when you say that he was ‘resisting a new direction’, but more likely i think that the new drection was away from the US dollar as reserve. The global central bank has got to already exist. The world central bank will be done for environmental reasons. They will want to limit any production and you will need a business license through the global central carbon bank. Run by GS, JPM, Barclays, and Deutche.
But at the same time, the whole scheme appears to be coming apart. Unfortunately, if it is true that a global bank is slipping out of the grasp of the globalist schemers, these are not the type of people who calmly exit stage left and I think that war on a massive scale would be the next option. The war wouldn’t necessarily be against anybody in particular, it would just be a way to “reset” the global economy for the next attempt at a global bank.
I have a really wild conspiracy theory on this, by the way. This is how I think the globalists had worked things out. First, set the stage through environmentalist activism for a “global environmental regulator” who would impose carbon caps or whatever as a back-door means of taxing the entire world. According to Lord Monckton, this was to have been introduced at the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen 2009. However, as a “fail safe” in case the Copenhagen summit fell through, there was to have been a large-scale war to effect the global reset of the economy. Iran was to have been the flashpoint for this war. I believe that the Iraq war was launched by the defectors as a vaccine against the planned Iran war which would have been at least regional in size, possibly global. That is, by sending US troops off into Iraq and putting them on stop-loss tours of duty and so on, the morale of the US public (most importantly) and the US military was sapped and dissipated. The globalists were beating the war drums against Iran from day one of Obama’s presidency (they had been beating them even before Obama, but not quite as loudly) and this drumbeat grew and grew until early-/mid-2010, right after the Copenhagen summit. By that time, it had become painfully obvious that the American public was not interested in a war against Iran. Americans had lost their post-9/11 hard-on for pointless military adventurism. As I said, this conspiracy theory is really wild… even I don’t believe it… but I enjoy constructing these theories.
Everything is controlled by the Rothschilds, et al., but there is a power struggle so they had to kick out DSK? DSK is small fish compared to Nathan Rothschild. I figured Nathan already had mind-control power over DSK.
I think that the Iran war is still gonna happen it has more to do with Israel than the US.
If you look at the geopolitical strategy that the Western countries have been on, it is a 30 years war scenario. We are ten years in. The ultimate U.S. enemies are Russia and China. Iraq and Afghanistan are doors to Iran. In fact, with Pakistan the U.S. will have Iran completely surrounded. Their supplies cut off, Israel will attack and NATO will attack Syria and Lebanon (possibly before or simultaneously). The politics in Isael puts their intended borders at the border of Egypt and the Euphrates (which is a lotbigger where they are at now).
If the U.S. can get ground troops into Pakistan’s Pashtun region it will effectively have Iran surrounded. Exceptions come to their North (Turkey and Turkenistan, both U.S. allies). Iran knows this and knows that the U.S. is planning on burglarizing the Pakistani nuclear facilities (Seal Team 6 style). “Which Path to Persia?” documents all of the possible war scenarios. The only way the U.S. can “have its cake and eat it too” is if Israel is able to attack Iran without the U.S. being complicit. They talk about the air space above the various countries and how the U.S. can and cannot escape culpability for Israle’s actions.
The global bank is a ways away. My guess is something like that is probably closer to a true endgame scenario. Once there are four economic regions they will be able to bring in a global credit hub. The North American region will only come after a total and complete US collapse, which will only come if the financial markets fall apart.
You’re consiparcy involves factions of really powerful people, so it’s more realistic than senor Jones’ conspiracies where everything is planned, designed, coordinated, and engineered by the one group of really powerful people.
Jones thinks that because they all work together in one way or another that they all meet at Bohemian Grove to plot. Which is probably true, but they don’t have CONTROL they have INFLUENCE. The difference is huge and means they they are not omnipotent. Rothbard just called them the power elite.
The real problems come in with the media. The media is what gives them the buffer zone to operate how they need. Not to mention Israel is immune from criticism in the U.S. (They are a huge problem)
I’ll try and find the white papers where in the early 1990’s when Wolfowitz was calling for the U.S. to topple about a dozen countries in the middle east in like ten years. We only really ever got 2 or 3 in.
The middle east: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabi, Yemen, (bahrain) & Israel (let’s not forget that Israel has nukes that it won’t admit to, which is why we don’t trust Iran, ironically)
Central Asia: Pakistan, India (China has already sided with Pakistan) Pakistan has signed a wartime ally treaty with Saudi Arabia, likely for the purpose of nuclear umbrella)
North Africa: Sudan, Libya, Somalia (CIA drone bombing in all)
THEY AREN’T! Ron Paul is. They know that this will lead to depression and THAT is the only way they are gonna grow sentiment for war.
They are just bleeding the countries out of all of the physcial resources they have Might take another year to get at all of the countries on the list.
My serious contention is that: the 21st century will see the complete dissolution of the nation state and the rise of corporate government. Corporations will slowly become the governing bodies. And given maybe one hundred years of this system, one bank will own everything. Continual sheering of the revenue bearing assets that nation states posses will mean they are irrelevent to fight back against corporate wishes. The banks know that without them the western system falls apart.
The banks are holding revolvers to their own heads and the nation states are saying, “DON’T DO IT. YOU CAN LIVE FOR US!!”
I think we can use Hoppe’s critique of democracy as a theoretical starting point for power elite analysis. Hoppe proves that democracies are aggressive and that their temporary custodians (presidents, prime ministers, etc.) will attempt to get what they can for themselves as fast as they can while they have the reins of power. That is, capital is squandered and time preference within the country is driven higher and higher.
But I think Hoppe has proved something more than this - if democracies have short-sighted leadership that plunder the country as quickly as possible and monarchies are less aggressive and take a long-term view towards preserving the captial value of the territories they rule, this automatically suggests that democratic rulers are simply less powerful than monarchical rulers. This is slightly counter-intuitive since many monarchies have been toppled since the 19th century… first France, then Russia, Austria, Germany, and so on down to the present day. Nevertheless, quite a few monarchies still remain so it’s not true that “monarchy is dead”… it’s just that a lot of monarchies are dead. Which leads to the next question… what really replaced them? I think what has really happened since the 19th century is not so much a shift from monarchy to democracy but from more-or-less transparent government (as Hoppe says, everybody knows who is king and avoids him and tries to protect themselves from him to the maximum extent possible) to secret government.
To summarize, the nature of power is and always has been fundamentally private. This goes back to Mises’s calculation problem. A government cannot calculate because it maintains no wealth or meaningful revenue stream. But the private interests who operate within and around the government can calculate because they do maintain wealth and have meaningful revenue streams. A wealthy, powerful family can ascertain that it is making the right decisions (from a business/political PoV) because they own more ports, shipping companies, seats in Congress and gold stockpiles than they did a decade ago. The US government, on the other hand, can only count its aircraft carriers and ICBMs… but it has to assume that those are a net gain instead of a net loss.
The problem with being a monarch is precisely what Hoppe said - everybody knows you’re the monarch so you have a big bullseye painted on your back. Being a Rothschild family or a Rockefeller family or a Vanderbilt family has the advantage that nobody knows for sure precisely what you own and control. Nobody knows the extents of your wealth and power. So, you have all the advantages of a monarchy - private calculation of wealth and revenue - but with less of the disadvantages - the big bullseye on your back. The key is having control of a throne, either partially or fully. The British Royal family has a literal throne. So where is the American throne? I think the “throne” in democratic countries is a combination of the political party apparatus and the permanent bureaucracy. I believe that control of the “throne” in democratic countries is piecemeal… one powerful family controls one group of bureaucracies and another powerful family controls another group. The same goes for control of the political party apparatus (of which the media is essentially an organic part).
In the US, whoever controls the courts (the bar), the military (Pentagon), the intelligence agencies (CIA/NSA/DHS/etc.) and the banks (Fed) really controls the whole shebang. So, the key to controlling an entire country is to try to seize and hold these power centers. I believe that the courts and the Fed are probably controlled by one power interest in the United States while the Pengagon and intelligence agencies are controlled by another power interest. The Fed/courts power group are pure globalists, they want to establish a one-world empire with themselves as the emperors (what Rothbard termed - a terminology he borrowed from another author - the Yankees). The Pentagon/intelligence power group are more nationalists and have stronger control over the US proper and they want to maintain the already pre-eminent status of the US in the world, ultimately at the expense of the first power group (what Rothbard/other author termed the Cowboys). That is, if the nationalist power group retains control of the US government and if the US government remains the most powerful in the world, it is in a de facto imperial position anyway. So there’s nothing to be gained by joining a one-world empire. The US is the one-world empire and it’s under the control of the nationalists (I think).
This is more or less what i think too. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the AMedicalA, AHistoricalA, Trial LawyersA, AEconomicsA, ABankingA, Univ. of Chicago itself etc etc that the rockefellers are the dominate influence in the US.
Because of the Rockefeller money that runs Univ. of Chicago i refer to the chicago school as the rockefller school. All of their interest are swept under the rug before we look at economics in real life. Nope, we need the growing money supply from the FED to be a given for our theories.
Rothbard and Hoppe (I haven’t read any of Hoppe) seem to be spot on. As i would expect, given they they have undertaken to try and expose the causes behind some of these things. What you wrote about the democracy being guided by institutions is the same thing that Joe Rogan says. haha. The institutions, that are the power centers, are only run by people, but they exist forever. The people themselves come and go. So whichever interests can effectively take over an institution it has a guise for it’s own interests. Those interests will gravitate to where they can have the most effective influence over what they desire to be as the outcome.
The way that is see it is that there are the ends, right? World government, empire, warfare, etc. So whichever interests pine for these things, they will inevitably work together to see those means come about.
Some of the corporations as well as banks want a world market, one currency, and one set of regulations. I don’t think they give a shit about people. and i think that the main corporations that construct the world regulatory bureaucracy will be the de facto rulers of the world (until they destroy it) Environmentalism has taken on the goal as well because it is, in their view, the only way to deal with worldwide ecological problems. The Eastern Establishment.
I think you are right to a degree about the US nationalists wanting to retain their empire as the world empire. I think Monsanto, Halliburton, Xe, etc fall under this category. The “cowboys” or the remnants of the "Southern/Texas Establishment
The military and intelligence, more or less, function as arms of the interests that have the money and power to direct funds to them. Banks, croproations, powerful families, AIPAC, etc. I think oil, real drug dealers (CIA, MI6, Moussad), construction, equity firms, investment banks, and powerful families have arms in here, but they pail in comparison to the might that Israel devotes to informing our intelligence and politicians. Israel spends more money and effort playing ‘espionage’ in Washington than anywhere else in the world. Watch this video, with Bill Maher, and this one with Michael Scheuer. The emotion that is evoked with pro israel people is palpable, i submit that this is evidence of the effectiveness on the, US public, of Israel’s goals. Here is a decent compilation of big names talking about it.
The Media is, I guess, a mafia. It is run, in its totality, by three seperate interests that function almost identically, but are sponsored by various amalgams of the other interests with slightly different specific ends and converging interests on the larger.. The media is much easier to get control of than the military, in terms of power.
What un nerves me are the family lineages that want the world depopulated and ponder merging human minds with machinery and computers. (Royals, Rockefellers, Turner, Gates, etc.)
I think Obamas administration is the little bitch chicago mafia’s (Old line communists and environmentalists ie. world government/internationalism mixed with zionist espionage) attempt to co opt some of the positions of both Yankee/cowboy establishments. They, all of the sudden, became privy to the state secrets list and they killed off Osama to further their own agenda…huuuuge deal. Obama came out of nowehere in favor for the 1967 border arrangement…another biggie not to the satisfaction of existing interests. They want Israel to attack Iran. Brzezinski is the only sensible one left. And i HATE to say that.
Some of the Navy people I’ve talked to say that they are being deployed and will eventually head to the Middle East for the upcoming war against Pakistan. It’s not that big of a secret that the USA military is positioning itself for another attack. It’s like when a company is going under; the employees know that it is and the information leaks.
I think that the ‘power elite’ of the USA and Europe are of the same ‘cosa nostra’. They really don’t want to see really bad things happen to their pions and polytrixters, instead they just want to expand their empire. To do this, China and Russia will be in their way, so using the old ‘divide and conquer’ strategy that has worked so great at many levels throughout history, I imagine the amer-euro family will pit India against Pakistan hoping that Russia and China join in leaving them in a weak position ripe for further expansion of the empire?
