Mitt Romney: Jerusalem Is Zionist and Jewish, not Christian Or Muslim

itt Romney lands in his favorite country and declares for it (“In Israel, Romney declares Jerusalem to be capital,” AP, July 29):

“On Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday declared Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state and said the United States has “a solemn duty and a moral imperative” to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.

“Make no mistake, the ayatollahs in Iran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way,” he said. “We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel.”

Comment:

“Since when do Presidential candidates stand on foreign soil and pledge to conduct U.S. foreign policy in accordance with the desires of the foreign government on whose soil they are standing?” asks the DailyKos correctly (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1114809/-You-re-not-President-yet-Mitt).

You’ll notice this is the same position that Ron Paul has recently taken (“Ron Paul shocks campaign staff with new position on Israel,” Business, April 13, 2012).…. albeit for constitutional reasons.

Does that bother me? Yes, I admit it does, even though Dr. Paul’s reasoning is perfectly valid….if you use strictly ideological arguments and forget politics,  history, and prudence.

It’s one more piece of evidence that Dr. Paul’s non-interventionism is weighted in favor of  Zionism.

I blogged as much last year – Ron Paul’s Zionist non-interventionism.

The whole thing bothers me, even though the campaign manager quoted in the piece, Douglas Wead (here he is blogging on the subject) has a tendency, reportedly, to put his own spin on Paul’s statements or actions.

It also bothers me that Ron Paul’s chief legal advisor is Bruce Fein, who has an extensive background as a lobbyist for foreign governments ( “Def(e)ining choice: Bruce Fein, the Turkish Lobby, and the Ron Paul campaign,” Nanour Barsoumian, The Armenian Weekly,January 20, 2012) that is completely at odds with Paul’s rhetoric against special interests.

I’ve blogged about Bruce Fein before and commented about him at other sites.

It was Bruce Fein who lobbied in support of US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, instead of as an international city, belonging equally to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism — which has been the position taken by the US State Department these many years (http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/about_the_embassy.html).

Sure, the State Dept. is left-leaning. But the left gets many things right, and I’m neither ideologically rigid enough nor partisan enough not to recognize when they do..

Last year, there was a seminal case that centered on whether a young Israeli-American dual citizen born in Jerusalem should have Jerusalem listed as his place of birth on his passport, or Israel. (“Court may rule on US stand on Jerusalem,” Barbara Ferguson and Tim Kennedy, Arab News, May 12, 2011)

The State Department  resisted all appeals from the parents and the case went to the Supreme Court, which decided in favor of having Israel on his passport, thereby setting a precedent for any judge who wants to overthrow US foreign policy from the bench.

That’s how the New World Order Works. Through judicial fiat.

The red-herring that constitutionalists dangle before everyone is the overweening power of the President and the constitutional limits that need to be set on it. That’s all very well and perfectly true,  except, again, the devil is in the details.

Who sets limits on Congress and the judiciary, both bribed and bought by  Zionists?

The media?

Also owned by Zionists.

It’s Zionists all the way down.

While the Paul/Rothbard anarcho-capitalist philosophy rails against secretive government and  executive over-reaching, you’ll notice that it also equates all commercial advertising and political donations with free speech.

Murray Rothbard, the principal intellect behind the hybrid movement,  also defended the decriminalization of bribery and blackmail. See M.N. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State, 443 n. 49, 1993, (http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf).

Whom does that help? The Zionist financiers who buy  Congress and bribe and bully the Judiciary.

So, what the left hand (constitutionality) giveth, the right hand (anarcho-capitalism) taketh away.

Using the letter of the law to circumvent its spirit is legalism.

Depending on which sect of conspiracy theory you favor, you can blame this on Jesuitical or Talmudic casuistry… or on perfidious Albion.

I prefer more academic terminology. Like, phony-baloney.

You notice I didn’t use the politically correct terminology, which would be “pro-Israeli” Congress and “pro-Israeli” President.  Because Israel, the nation-state, is only one part of this and because nation-states seem to be slated for demolition in the near future.

Israel  is the cockpit, but not the whole plane.

If the Zionists want something, they can get it equally through extra-legal means or the most snow-white constitutionality. Paul’s constitutionalism, however well-meaning, has acted as nothing more than window-dressing.

I don’t think he can be blamed for it. It may not be something he or anyone can really help.

But it’s lesson should be clear.

Politics is not only not the answer. At this point, it is a diabolical diversion.

The Money-Power: The Bankers That Rule The Economy

A report in New Scientist (“Revealed: the Capitalist Network That Runs The World” October 24, 2011) confirms what honest observers of the system (often called banking conspiracy theorists) have said along – a small interlocking group of powerful banks rule the world economy. I blogged about this last year in “The 20..er…4..companies that rule the world” (October 28, 2011)

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study’s assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York’s Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world’s transnational corporations (TNCs).

“Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it’s conspiracy theories or free-market,” says James Glattfelder. “Our analysis is reality-based.”

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy – whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. “If one [company] suffers distress,” says Glattfelder, “this propagates.”

“It’s disconcerting to see how connected things really are,” agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system’s behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, “is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups”. Or as Braha puts it: “The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy.”

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning “Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…” was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies

1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

Graphic: The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy

Comment

This shouldn’t come as a surprise for anyone who’s been reading this blog. I blogged about this in “Nightmare on Wall Street” (2008)

My earlier pieces on Goldman Sachs, were premised on research into this interlocking cartel.

For the power behind the banking cartel, see “The Invisible House of Rothschild” by Zahir Ebrahim.

See also my blog post “The Invisible Wealth Of The Rothschilds,” (2011) citing a piece by Markus Angelicus on the estimated wealth of the Rothschilds, “The Rothschilds, the LBMA and gold” (1997)

The numbers (hundreds of thousands of trillions of dollars) might seem outlandish, and they may well be,  but if you consider the estimate to include the entire holdings of the family in all its branches, and if you consider the family to be the head of what is really a banking syndicate that includes a network of other financial houses, then the figures become more plausible.

Still, other estimates I have seen are much more modest, ranging from a few trillion to a 300-500 trillion.

So that is quite a variance and none of this is documented scientifically. They are more or less speculative estimates based on published figures, since we have no public accounting for wealth held in family trusts or vaults. And they assume that these families’ holdings have not been wiped out, or eroded, as some of them claim.

Additionally, the Rothschilds are the bankers to the Crown and they have systematically intermarried with some members of the Royalty, so the total numbers would reflect the combined wealth of the ruling houses into which they married, as well as their own money.

Finally, here is a report that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families have joined in a business merger:

Rockefeller and Rothschild Dynasties Join Forces, Deal Book, NY Times, May 30, 2012.

Iceland Versus The Banksters

Political Vel Craft.org wrote on June 9, 2012

No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again.

That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.

Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.”

And more:

“Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.

Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.

In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.

To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.

Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.

The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.”

Comment:

Reporter Wayne Madsen, among others, has found connections between the IMMI and the elites.

Others have found them, as well. But since I periodically have doubts about all my judgments and want to refine them in light of new evidence, new research, additional epiphanies and/or rude awakenings, I plan on taking a second look at the IMMI.

Privacy versus transparency might be another of those binaries we need to surmount with creative intelligence.

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Team

Joseph Sarkissian analyzes the foreign policy team to which Rand Paul, heir-apparent to his father’s flock, delivered the libertarian faithful (they-who-do-not-question-but-yet-know-all-the-answers) when, this summer, he endorsed Mr. Wall Street Mitt Romney.

1. Eliot Cohen – Special adviser, author of Romney’s foreign policy white paper.

At least Eliot Cohen doesn’t pull any punches. He has overtly called for the removal of the Iranian regime by all means necessary, sans force. Good to know, but how do we pull that off? Cohen believes soft power would do the trick, but how long before that soft power necessitates hard power once the Iranian regime begins ramping up attacks against U.S. and Israeli assets? No regime like Iran’s will stand by idly as it is picked apart from the outside, and once the retaliatory bombings, assassination attempts, and other counter-intelligence measure are begun by Iran, the U.S. and Israel won’t be able to stand by either.

2. Dov Zakheim – Special adviser

Aside from also being hawkish on Iran and Iraq, Zakheim has a proven track record of sketchy behavior. Aside from the highly controversial disappearance of a massive amount of money while comptroller of the Pentagon, he runs Foreign Policy’s “Shadow Government” blog where he argues for even more aggressive drone strikes and rails against Obama’s foreign policy. Zakheim is a staunch supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that pushes hard for intervention in Iran and was adamant about the push for war in Iraq.

3. John Bolton – Trusted personal policy adviser, potential cabinet appointee

Mitt Romney once said of John Bolton that, “John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy.” If this is true, be very afraid. Bolton could be the most hawkish of Romney’s advisers. He is a signatory to numerous letters to presidents past and present, including one to Bill Clinton in 1998 from the defunct Neocon think tank, “Project for a New American Century (PNAC)” urging Clinton to get rid of Saddam. In a March letter to President Obama from Romney’s foreign policy team, Bolton signed off on statements saying the president is too soft on Iran, not supportive enough of Israel’s interests, should have left troops in Iraq, and has potentially crippled the U.S. military with budget cuts.

4. Robert Kagan, Special adviser

Who’s ready for some good old-fashioned regime change? If Robert Kagan gets his way, that’s what you can expect. Aside from wanting to oust Iranian leadership and cause massive conflict, Kagan is on the board of directors for the Foreign Policy Initiative, or as I like to call it, PNAC 2.0, where he served as a project director. A quintessential Neocon, Kagan has time and time again steadfastly supported the war in Iraq, saying that the war was a good idea, that Iraq was getting more secure in 2004, and that the Arab Spring can be attributed to U.S. efforts in Iraq. It’s hard to find someone more disillusioned in the policy community.

While some could chalk up all of Romney’s rhetoric to early election cycle hogwash, his advisers haven’t changed their tunes. Given that Mitt is about as informed as a table lamp on foreign policy, I shudder to think of the consequences of his team having carte blanche. Whether they suffer from groupthink – since many of them have worked and continue to work in the same place –or just a lack of ability to see the errors of their predictions, something has to balance them out. Hopefully that something is a loss at the polls in November.”

Ron Paul Implosion: End The Fed To Technology Revolution…

The Pauls have lost all credibility with me.

Read their latest missive, blogged at EPJ

And reported here at Forbes: “Ron Paul Takes Up Internet Freedom with New Technology Revolution.”

They’ve abandoned the financial battle.

I guess the financial coup of 2008, completed in 2010, is now sealed and cordoned off from prosecution. Last month, as if to confirm that, the White Queen (the City)  took down the Black Knight (Gupta) that had infiltrated the highest ranks of her court, while the White Bishop (Lloyd Doing-God’s Work Blankfein) was witness for the prosecution.

“End the Fed,” which  Rand Paul converted to” Audit the Fed,” is over.

The Pauls have now skipped forward to their new, new project –  the  “Technology Revolution.”

I  never thought that much of “End the Fed,” because, as I’ve blogged previously, the elites can manufacture money from other places besides the Fed, like the BIS and the reconstituted IMF.

But, apparently,  End the Fed doesn’t even work as a popular slogan any more.

So, what do I think about the new campaign?

I think it will be about as effective as their “End the Fed” campaign, which is to say, not effective at all.

See my comment at The Daily Bell in 2010:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:55 AM
Daily Bell: “But by pursuing his strategy, he has made his opponents look like fools and perhaps altered the course of history.”

Lila: Let’s hope. Personally, I agree with Doug Casey on this:
“As a lone voice, his father was a breath of fresh, more principled air, but he didn’t change anything at all that I can see”

(Doug Casey on Presidents, LRC)

But it will be a great platform for the Pauls to sell books, promote ideas and launch political careers for their family members.

I only hope it won’t be done on the backs of idealistic young people. There were many who put change they could hardly spare in a tough economy into the Paul’s war chest.

The new campaign, which dubs itself  “The Internet Versus The Machine” is obviously a rebranding campaign to move young people away from what Forbes calls “the archaic” (they mean arcane) issues of finance.

Instead, the Pauls will focus on the hip world of the net.

Forbes:

“Young people have been a driving force in the Paul campaign, and the focus on internet freedom should only bolster that support.”

I’m going to call foul on that.

Their new “campaign” is in support of the Technology Revolution on the Internet?

Last I looked the tech revolution has been around for a while, getting on quite well without the Pauls.

One part of  the new project is going to be defending big business from attempts by consumers to scrutinize their data collection.

I kid you not. Here is Buzzfeed on the subject.

“The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as “big data.”

They deride the notion that “private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of ‘protecting consumers,’ at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.”

So does this mean that Ron Paul is going to be fighting to prevent European governments or NGOs  like EFF or Asian governments from scrutinizing Google’s data collection practices?

Remember that I just blogged that Google’s CEO Larry Page should be arrested for privacy violations and espionage against foreign governments?

I was being satirical about US surveillance of foreign CEO’s and money-managers.

For instance, in the Galleon -Gupta cases, the government used wire-taps whose authorization was obtained pre-textually in violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

I don’t recall that the Pauls said a word about that, although the Galleon insider case has dominated the financial media for a couple of years now, and is directly tied via Rajaratnam’s funding of Tamil charities to  issues like terrorist money-laundering  with which Paul adviser Bruce Fein – once employed by an alleged front group for the Tamil Tigers –  is intimately connected.

A recent Washington Post article described how the military is outsourcing surveillance in Africa to private contractors (with little accountability, significant cost over-runs, and little to show for the expense).

Densely populated China and India are both locked in battles with the West for access to resources and agricultural lands.  Indian and Chinese companies compete with American and European countries on the African continent.  China and India have also complained about American corporate espionage.  American companies in turn complain about IP theft from the Indians and Chinese.  Meanwhile the US government itself is involved in IP theft through its pervasive global surveillance.  Where does data collection for corporations end and espionage for the state begin, anyway? Where does the government end and the private sector begin, when private companies are outsourced arms of the government and the government is the enforcement arm of the companies?

Ron Paul is not oblivious to the complexities of all this. He is far too shrewd.

Rajat Gupta’s conviction shows evidence in my opinion of being a  set up by the government, with some arm-twisting from Goldman Sachs. Likely it was an important blow in the  covert psy war against India, an ostensible US ally, about which I blogged here (“Coconut Imperialism”and here, “Educating the Gentoos In India”)

The obvious response from foreign governments (such as India) would be to treat American CEO’s the same way and wire-tap them.

So, is it just coincidental that the Pauls suddenly abandon their financial campaign (which never involved a word against Goldman Sachs), and suddenly rush to head off any animosity toward Google?

On their silence on G Sachs, here is a comment I made (one among many) below the same Daily Bell article:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:40 AM

@Pisano.

Why would it distract him?
How hard is it to say, unequivocally, “Goldman Sachs and several other banks, are involved in corrupt actions and should be investigated and prosecuted.”

There. Back to “business.”

He certainly had no problem drawing a hard line over relatively trivial things like a monument to Rosa Parks. If he was really afraid of distraction, why would he make a fuss over something like that, and then on something crucial, suddenly go silent?

Why doesn’t he state clearly – “9-11 needs to be investigated. There is credible evidence that there was some kind of conspiracy involving intelligence agencies, US and foreign.”

I like Ron Paul and want to believe the best of him.

But this excuse doesn’t hold water for two seconds.”

This looks like more material to add to the mounting evidence (see  here) that Paul fronts for financial interests.

Perhaps he cannot avoid doing it, as I’ve said.

But there’s no need to be suckered into what could well be a counter-attack against foreign governments who defend themselves against espionage by Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/TOR and the rest of the government-corporate spy sector, by couching the issue as a defense of the private sector.

That explanation also takes care of Paul’s pandering to the left.

The financial world (which controls the media) is left-leaning, in contrast to non-financial businesses.  Paul’s recent moves make quite a bit of sense when understood that way.  He acts to co-opt the brand of libertarianism appropriately called the Marxism of the right by deploying what seem to be ideologically inflexible positions in the service of  larger imperial goals.

So, I have to ask. Will the two Pauls now be collecting money from young people to defend multi-billion dollar multinationals like Google from scrutiny by the governments on which they spy?

I mean, if you phrased that in the appropriately anti-state way, there will be enough libertarian lemmings who’ll rush to defend Google, I’m sure.

This theory might explain why the financial media, usually so vocal in defense of insider-trading, when it’s done by Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky, is suddenly so quiet  about South Asian insider-trading not a tenth as bad.

Does it also explain why large parts of the alternative press  have had nothing but praise for Julian Assange, another front for western financial interests? And why the Pauls have promoted Assange?

Talk about Trojan horses.

Big corporations cannot be analyzed separately from government.

When the state outsources its spying to corporations, for someone to argue that the state should not limit corporate surveillance because it’s engaged in surveillance itself is confused, at best, and downright misleading, at worst.

Especially when it comes from seasoned politicians like the Pauls.

Parts of the government are scrutinizing the private sector. Often they’re right to.

Other parts of government are much worse than the private sector when it comes to privacy violation.

Those parts of the government are often most incestuously allied with corporations. This is the corporate-state or intel-industrial complex that produces programs like Echelon.

So it’s quite bizarre for the Pauls to claim that Microsoft (or Google or Apple) are pure private-sector entities, when they gain market share directly because of concrete government actions on their behalf and because of endemic and pervasive state-created judicial/legal/financial corruption.

One more thing.  Microsoft wasn’t prescient at all about the net, as the Pauls claim in their new manifesto.

It was way behind. Gates himself admitted it.

There is, finally, another reason why the Pauls may have turned their attention to protecting Big Data,

It looks like Big Data is bankrolling him.

Here’s Reason’s Brian Doherty, making the point:

“With Peter Thiel, founder of the controversial “big data” company Panantir, having made a $2.6 million investment in the (somewhat feckless in the end) superPAC “Endorse Liberty” during campaign season, perhaps the Paul machine sees this as a cause that can energize both grassroots and big money.”

And that’s all  I want to say now about this turn of events until I learn a bit more what is really going on.

But, if you were waiting to see Ron Paul libertarianism implode, it happened this week.

Globalist Power In America

Jeff Thomas in LRC:

The Patriot Act (Passed in 2001 and extended in in 2011 with additional controls) expands law enforcement powers and removes civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed rights. www.renewamerica.com/columns/webster/090419

The National Defense Authorization Act, passed on 31st December, 2011, allows the indefinite imprisonment by the military of any “suspects” (including American citizens on American soil) without allowing due process of law. www.en.wikipedia.org/nationaldefenseauthorisationact

The MAP-21 Bill, which allows the Internal Revenue Service to suspend the passport rights of Americans, based on the premise that their tax obligations may be unfulfilled. www.losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/IRSbill

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order, created in March, 2012, allows the President to take over control of all food, water, labour and industry in the US, “to promote national defense.” www.naturalnews.com/035301/Obamaexecutiveorders 30,000

Drones to fly over the US allowed by executive order, February, 2012, providing the government with an Orwellian surveillance ability and a killing capacity ranging from selected individuals to entire communities. www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/pers-j21.shtml

FEMA Interment Camps, to be constructed in every state, with 3 – 15 in each state, for an undisclosed purpose. www.americanthinker.com

Compounds to store “disposable coffins,” each with hundreds of thousands of 4-5 person coffins stored near city centres around the country. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERaw6AW7Zec

450 million hollow point bullets ordered by the Department of Homeland Security To be used domestically. (The DHS is not responsible for addressing national invasions or overseas wars; it exists solely for the control of internal disorder. Hollow point bullets are not intended for sharpshooting – they are designed specifically to maximize tissue damage.) www.articles.businessinsider.com

Comment:

If this doesn’t wake up people, I don’t know what will.

Print it out. Plaster it everywhere you can. Pass it to people who don’t read the papers, or people who only listen to Mark Levin (grrr-rrr).

I am emailing it to friends in India, who think of me with amused benevolence as some kind of  harmless loco, like one of those rural preachers scaring their flock about the second coming.

If it’s so bad, they tell me, why does everyone want to go to America? Why are people falling over themselves for a green card?

[In the last decade of liberalization, India has become one of the most pro-American countries in the world.  Pro-capitalist too, from the soaring  sales of Ayn Rand’s books there.]

So this is for all of you ammas and appas, thaathas and  paatis, annas, thambis, thangachisbhaiyyas who are always saying things like –

“Why do you want to blog about such things?”

“Arrey, you’re asking for  big trouble.”

“They are not going to like some foreigner writing about their government. Just stop it.”

“Probably there’s a reason if the government is doing it.”

Here’s my answer to all of you:

Green cards are not everything.  Yes, the Indian passport is one of the most restrictive in the world. Yes, the rupee has fallen recently like no other currency. Yes, there are  current cuts for hours,  continual carnage on the roads,   filth on the streets,  bureaucratic muddles that put Kafka to shame, and whole-sale corruption.  But poverty and inefficiency has its uses. The Indian government hasn’t got the resources to police the entire country as they do here. The black economy there is too powerful to be destroyed. The criminals out of power keep the criminals in power in check.  It is a murky compromise. But it is a compromise.

Here, there is no compromise.

Here, there is only the razor-edge uncompromising division between us and them,  true and false, good and evil.

Here, we cannot compromise with evil, because we cannot find it within us, only outside, out there, in the other fellow.

And so we have given evil a name and a place, and we have made an appointment to meet it. We have loaded the bullets and sharpened the knives.

We have dug the grave in which we will bury it.

Now nothing will stop us from keeping our appointment.

Even though that grave may  become our own.

Rajat Gupta Trial: The Goldfinger Defense

Goldfinger said: “My friends in Chicago have a saying, Mr. Bond. Once is Happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, it’s enemy action.

Someone at The New York Times must be reading my blog.

Just as I started weaving my very creative and cogent conspiracy theory about the Gupta case ( my conspiracy theories always turn out to be true, you’ll notice) they trot out this article explaining that Goldman may be paying for Gupta, but they really hate doing it because Gary Naftalis, Gupta’s lawyer, is saying all those mean, mean things about them.

“To say that Goldman Sachs has paid Gupta’s legal bills grudgingly would be an understatement. Not only did Gupta abuse his role as a Goldman director, the jury determined, but Gupta’s lawyers assailed the bank throughout the trial.”

But all that is beside the point. The point is Gupta didn’t win what should have been an easy case. 

For $30 million bucks, a very high sum even for such a high–profile case, I wouldn’t take anything except a win.

So slamming Goldman means nothing.

People say nasty things about Goldman all day long, and all they’re doing is letting off steam.

I bet the powers-that-be are quite happy for people to let off steam. They get to know what everyone’s thinking without the bother of opinion-polls. And they know if you’re venting on a blog, you’re unlikely to be blowing up a bridge, hacking a military computer, or putting together a legal brief that would really put some of the BigBoyz away.

Stomping around, muttering  and swearing, is a fairly safe thing to do,
unless in your muttering, you’re also puncturing the hot-air balloons floated by the establishment.

[That’s our thankless but quite enjoyable task on this blog. Not that you’ll find any “hero of liberty” here. Heroes should be prepared to die. We’re not even willing to be sued.]

Anyway, back to Naftalis. It’s not the cussing out of Goldman that counts. It’s the evidence supporting the defense.

In the final count, Naftalis wasn’t able to get the evidence through to Rakoff – that’s all that matters and that’s what worries me…and has me worrying that the fix is in.

So The NY Times gets E, for effort, for making the PR case for Goldman so swiftly, but B- for plausibility.

I’ll stick with my Goldman Fix conspiracy for now.

The NYTimes goes on:

“They depicted Goldman as a cesspool of tipsters feeding Rajaratnam inside information. A defense lawyer called Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive who was forced to testify for three days, “cold and callous.”

Lila: Well, dah-links (in my best Zsa-Zsa manner) there were Goldman tipsters running around all over the place. And  it would be human to suspect Lloyd Blankfein didn’t exactly keep a zipped lip from sunrise to sundown, did he?

On prattles the conscience of the nation:

“….The “cold and callous” remark about Mr. Blankfein came from a defense lawyer who said that Mr. Blankfein didn’t remember laying off about 3,000 people during the financial crisis. A spokesman for the bank accused the lawyer of distorting Mr. Blankfein’s testimony.”

Oh dear. This gets more entertaining by the minute.

Where have we heard those words before?

Why, it’s straight out of —

Goldfinger!

Goldfinger, he`s the man, the man with the Midas touch
A spider`s touch
Such a cold finger beckons you to enter his web of sin
But don`t go in
Golden words he will pour in your ear
But his lies can`t disguise what you fear…

...Golden words he will pour in your ear
But his lies can`t disguise what you fear
For a golden girl knows when he`s kissed her
It`s the kiss of death from Mister
Goldfinger, pretty girl, beware of this heart of gold
This heart is cold
He loves only gold
Only gold
He loves gold
He loves only gold
Only gold
He loves gold!!!!!!

With suitable “ed-jessment” for gender…. and agenda…and minus all the hard evidence (wire-taps of actual tips being passed by Goldman tipsters), that’s what the defense amounted to – Goldfinger!

LOL

Of course, it’s not too far from the facts, come to think of it.

We know Lloyd Blankfein came out of  J. Aron, the trading company. As did Gary Cohn. We pointed out what Blankfein’s trading background meant for the firm back in 2006 at Money Week.

Lloyd was originally a gold trader himself.

And both Blankfein and Cohn have been named as the source of Goldman’s problems in the recent past, by managing director Greg Smith, who jumped ship publicly this March.

So a Goldfinger defense actually works (or, rather, it should have worked).

More Lulz..

(To be continued in the next post)

Rajat Gupta: Goldman Footing Legal Bills, Says Anonymous Source

The WTF quotient of this bizarre case shoots up even higher.

Someone from Goldman is leaking anonymously that Gupta’s bills –  to the tune of $30 million and counting – are being footed by Goldman itself. With Procter & Gamble picking up the rest.

Startribune:

Goldman foots bulk of Gupta’s $30M legal bill

For Goldman Sachs, the insider trading case against former board member Rajat Gupta which ended in a conviction Friday, was distracting and embarrassing. It has also been very expensive. Goldman Sachs has paid for the bulk of Gupta’s legal defense, which has cost nearly $30 million, according to two people with direct knowledge of the case who requested anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss it publicly. Procter & Gamble, on whose board Gupta also served, has picked up the balance of the bill. A jury found Gupta guilty of leaking Goldman’s private boardroom discussions to the former hedge fund titan Raj Rajaratnam. He was acquitted on a count related to divulging secrets about P&G. Gupta plans to appeal.”

Comment

[Lila, June 19, 2012. This has since been confirmed as factual and not a rumor or PR]

Hmm. We don’t think too much of anonymous leaking.  Sounds like Goldman PR. The guy is coming off sympathetically, so maybe some one wants to stir up a little bad feeling. Kind of obvious.

They figured they’d axe the guy and everyone would be dancing in the streets and asking for blood. But most people seem to realize that even if Gupta did what he did, insider trading is a small time side-show on Wall Street.  Not the really bad stuff. Most people get that.

And the Indian business world didn’t break down and sob with contrition either, which also flummoxed the ruling class. I mean what good is a psyop, if your target holds up his middle finger back at you?

Reuters ran a piece telling the Indian business community to get a better cause.

The Financial Times (pretty much a mouthpiece for the financial establishment) scolded them for showing support for Gupta.

Then it trotted out various Indian chamchas to pontificate about how corrupt Indian business is, which is true but irrelevant, since Indian business culture has nothing to do with what went on here.

Rajat Gupta lived all his life in the West. He graduated  from Harvard Business School, for pete’s sake. The guy is a product of Western business culture. Go wag a finger at Harvard.

They even had one Gurcharan Das – must be a pretty naive guy – to come out with the proper attitude the wogs are supposed to take about all this. Notice that Gurcharan Das has a website that shows him speechifying at Tahrir Square (US Intel-led revolution)and advising Indians not to let a good crisis go to waste

(this is pure globalist-speak).

[June 19: Further conspiracy note: when I got up today and checked, I noticed that the reference to Tahrir Square etc. had been cut out from my blog post, even though I clearly remember saving it.  I must be confused right? But then, when I checked Gurcharan Das’s website this morning, the video on the home page was no longer about Tahrir Square. It had been switched to something else. The Tahrir Square video had got tucked away inside. Hmm-mmm.]

“It’s the classic problem of status anxiety. It’s what we all suffer from in some form,” said Mr Das, who is the author most recently of The Difficulty of Being Good, a book that draws on the philosophical lessons of the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata.

“As head of McKinsey he was associating with CEOs and billionaires earning very large sums. His job was to advise people with a lot of capital, not to be an owner of capital. He got new ambitions.”

You’ll recognize the  “greed” meme which the establishment pushed heavily to explain what happened.

Fool's Gold: How Unrestrained Greed Corrupted a Dream, Shattered Global Markets and Unleashed a Catastrophe

That’s to distract from the rather obvious origins of the financial crisis in government policy abetted by the criminal actions of connected firms, and not in some generic evil capitalist greed curling around Wall Street like a miasma.

Mr Das also highlighted the “glaring” contrast between an erratic and slow-moving Indian legal system that often protects the well-connected, and the swift and harsh punishment handed out by the powerful US courts. “We sometimes catch [people] but we don’t convict,” he said.

“What the US system is saying is that no one is above the law.”

Poor dear Mr. Das. He must have been struck blind and deaf in the past decade if he believes that “in the US system no one is above the law”.

But I guess, even though Das is doing the talking, he’s really a sock puppet, for his masters.

Like this chap, remember him?

But back to Goldman footing Gupta’s bills. Say it’s not just clever PR from Goldman. Say it’s true.

Why would they do that?

Probably because they really wanted Gupta to get off?  If he’s been a corporate wise man all these years, he’s bound to know where some bodies are buried. Lord knows what he’s going to start saying around sentencing time.

[Or maybe they want to make sure the crowd gets someone to pay for all the excesses of the last few decade.  At Forbes, Richard Levick apparently thinks Gupta deserves the harshest sentence possible just because he didn’t make money on the tip, but wanted to become a bigger player..]

Still, I had no idea that criminal defense teams were part of the severance package at these places. Maybe it has to be.

Given what we know about Wall Street culture,  an individually-wrapped securities lawyer is a non-negotiable perk, like stock options, or something.

Or maybe, I wonder if it doesn’t tell us something else.  May be if they’re footing the bill for Gupta, they’re also picking the lawyer. (Naftalis and Bharara are old friends (I originally wrote Rakoff, but I now read that Bharara is a friend of Naftalis, as well, and I can’t find the place I read the reference to Rakoff, so I’ve deleted it))

And maybe if that’s the case, this is even more of a set-up than I thought.

The Invisible Wealth Of The Rothschilds

Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence

by Markus Angelicus: November 21, 1997 :

Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today’s dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:

$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)
$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)
$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)
$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)
$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)

To give these figures some perspective consider these benchmarks:

A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world (see John Kutyn’s estimate (http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/kutyn111597.html).
U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion
U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion.
U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion.
George Soros’ empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.

Arnaud de Borchgrave writes on April 28, 2011 in The Washington Times:

(You will see that his assessment of the crisis is exactly mine)

“An original $100,000 stake in Mr. Soros‘ fund was worth $150 million by 1994. Between 1970 and 2000, the return was 3,365 percent. (For 10 consecutive years, it did 42.6 percent per year.) In 1992, Mr. Soros bet billions against the British pound – and broke the Bank of England (“Black Wednesday”).

Comment:

I needn’t remind you that this is BEFORE the bursting of the stock market bubble, 9-11, the 2003 stock market revival that was stimulated by the Iraq war, the housing bubble, the 2008 crash, and the gold boom, all of which provided ample opportunities for people in the know to make killings in the market.

Related Posts

The 24..er..4 Companies that Rule the World

See also Zahir Ebrahim: My Experiments In Confusion: The Invisible House of Rothschild

and Zahir Ebrahim: My Experiments In Confusion: The Omnipotent Rothschilds

and Arnaud de Borchgrave: Geneva Gnomes’ Global Dread

(hat-tip to WeAreChange.org, Oklahoma)

Deconstructing Soros’ New World Architecture

BCCI: Hit Man For The IMF

Soros: Front For N.M. Rothschild

The CIA, the US Govt, the Stock Market, and Drug-Running

John Paulson’s Man at Treasury Will Design Regulations

Civil Society + Internationalist + Anonymous = World Government

The Easter Bunny On the DTCC

Another False-Flag

“We’re done folks. CNBC is reporting that there are now clients running out of the markets entirely because they do not believe their customer funds are safe. That’s the end of it. The belief that there are more MF Globals has now taken hold. The thieves have pushed it too far and now we’ve got the start of a global liquidity run, and with good reason”

—  Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker

[Gerald Celente, noted financial analyst and publisher of The Trends Journal, said recently that he’d lost six figures in the collapse of MF Global, which owned his commodity futures brokerage file and filed for bankruptcy on October 31, 2011. MF Global was headed by corrupt ex-Goldmanite Jon Corzine, who has resigned from MF and  is now being sued by investors.

Celente then called for a run on the banks on a show with talk radio host, Alex Jones, an anti-NWO activist:

“When I say take your money out of the banks and put it under the mattress, this is not advice,” Celente says. “Personally, I buy gold coins from reputable companies. I take my money out of investment funds and I buy gold and silver. You need the three g’s — gold, guns and a get-away plan.”

Celente has called for “direct democracy” recently,  a demand that I think is in tune with what the financial elites want. That’s what made me think the MF collapse was being used as a false-flag of some kind.

It was, maybe, intended to provoke a run and Denninger is amplifying it.

I recall that Max Keiser (a former derivatives trader and leftist who has now set himself up as a critic of derivatives) tried to provoke a bank run on JP Morgan, by telling people to go buy silver in December 2010.

Keiser disengages himself from Al Gore these days, but he still believes in anthropogenic global warming and the need for something to be done about it.

He seems to want chaos and confrontation on the streets, according to those who follow him closely. He is in favor of a carbon exchange, which, as a trader, he probably knows would be very lucrative for insiders.

On the forums of PrisonPlanet, one observer notes that Keiser claimed that if silver went to $47, JP Morgan would collapse.  Well, silver went to $49 this year, and JP Morgan is still around.

I have no idea what Celente’s role is in all that, but it’s all mighty suspicious to me.

He has, for instance, said that he is “all for this Occupy Wall Street”.

No ifs, no buts. No reservations. No questions.

It’s all good, for Mr. Celente. It’s all democracy, even thought it’s apparently paid for by billionaire George Soros, to whom the CIA has essentially outsourced its functions.

I didn’t comment on the story before, not knowing what happened exactly, but now I’m beginning to think it was intended to provoke a run and maximum panic. Apparently, it’s had that effect.

Celente and others are also promoting “direct democracy”, which, like “full transparency”, is something the elites want, whatever its inherent merits. Those merits aren’t the point. The elites will use whatever tool they can.

The point is direct democracy in which the social media is manipulated anonymously by intelligence agencies, corporations, governments, and media shills, is  tyranny by another name.

Here is what I wrote about Celente last month.

Gerald Celente Stabs anti-NWO Folks Front, Back, and Center, October 14, 2011:

I do not  say that direct referendums necessarily lack merit. They might work, were we living in small city states…. and were the internet discontinuous, fragmented, and highly private…. and were most people rational, well-educated, self-critical and self-reliant.

But we aren’t, it isn’t, and they aren’t.

So Direct Internet Democracy will not be anarchism, right or left, and it won’t be Christian liberty. Nor will it be federalism or decentralization.

It will be the direct control of the masses through electronic networks, propaganda, surveillance, and co-option of alternative mouthpieces of all stripes, across the board.

Direct Electronic Democracy = Tyranny

I call it Direct Electronic Action for Tyrants and Demagogues

Which equals DEATH. The death of true liberty.