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.
I like how your reaction is to the ignorant user comments, on the third party site nonetheless, rather than the court briefing.
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.
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.
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.
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...
In my opinion, superlative power is primarily held by the royal families of Europe
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.
“Stability operations, which are usually military operations in civilian environments, include many missions, among them peace operations, combating terrorism, counter-drug operations, population control and nation assistance.”
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
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
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,
Expansion of the US military can include association with locals who can lead the soldiers “to operate in diverse cultural environments.” Citing Iraq and Afghanistan, Schear asserts that the US armed forces’ partnering with private sector corporations can pacify the population so that the US State Department and other government agencies can operate without threat of conflict.
P.S. I didn't derail the thread...someone else did.
Neodoxy:Who do you think that the most powerful people in the world are?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Aristophanes:Warburg and Schiff were German bankers, not English.
So what? Rothschild wasn't only English banking.
Morgan was English and moer than likely is the one fronting for the Rothschilds at the time.
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.
Where are you getting this? Nelson Alrich's grandon Nelson Rockefeller was VP for Ford and ler=dt office with Carter. Nixon looks like a more Rockefeller oriented politician than Carter....Frankly, the term 'Rockefeller Republican' was prominent around then.
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.
Aristophanes:Warburg and Schiff were German bankers, not English. So what? Rothschild wasn't only English banking.
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,
Morgan was English and moer than likely is the one fronting for the Rothschilds at the time. 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.
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)
Aristophanes:Morgan's associations with the Bank of England (which obviously has Rothschild all over it) through Montagu Norman and the CFR 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).
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.
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.
...I'm not following your argument.
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. ...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.
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.
Yeah. Assassins aren't that controversial there are hundreds of them in Pakistan and they get paid roughly 700-1000 bucks per hit.
Does controversy matter to a private interest who is not subject to public scrutiny like a political official is?
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.
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.
You aren't even familiar with the views of the Rothschilds today.
What that they hate the State of Israel and think it is an abomination. Come on!
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...
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."
Here we go. The Rothschilds aren't superlatively powerful, it is the people that they loaned money to who have the real power.
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?
Aristophanes: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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't that the first thing I said? I don't know who they are for sure.
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've never claimed that my thoughts are anything more than inference from scant factual evidence.
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.
I didn't excpect fallacies of this kind from you.
1.) Do I know you?
2.) What fallacy?
Have I implied that?
P1: A does not know for sure, which object is described by a statement S.
P2. A knows that S does not describe X.
Your fallacy is that P1 implies NOT P2.
Yes. If you have expectations of me...
P1: A does not know for sure, which object is described by a statement S. P2. A knows that S does not describe X. Your fallacy is that P1 implies NOT P2.
hah - Sure his syntactic structure is fine for his argument, but his lacking an object of "who is at the top" is not sufficient to rule out the Rothschilds. A.K.A. he is running into the fallacy of affirming negatives. In other words he is trying to prove a position through negative propositions. We do not prove things by explaining how or why they are not only by how they are. He lacks sufficient evidence to rule out his intital proposition. This isn't a logical syntax problem (as you claim of my own observation), but is that of true propositions.
This only means I know you to some extent (through your public posts here) not that you know me. Should I write this out as a syllogism? ;)
his lacking an object of "who is at the top" is not sufficient to rule out the Rothschilds
My reading of Clayton's reasoning was that he knows the top guy is not a Rothschild despite not knowing who is the top guy, not because of it. A despite B, as opposed to A because of B.
he is running into the fallacy of affirming negatives
Never heard of this one. Is it a standard name?
And I see that as insufficient to make that case. There is reason to believe that they are near the top (i.e. there is evidence of it), but when you take them off of the pedestal then say, "Well I don't know what goes there" without giving sufficient reasoning for why you took them off in the first place, it leaves the impression that it might not be rational to take them off in the first place.
I think I got it from Malthus' description of it. (Making a positive case with negative arguments). South Park uses it too, (regarding ancient aliens) "You can't prove it didn't happen!"
And I see that as insufficient to make that case.
Ah, I see your point. We are actually making different statements.
You say (I think) that the sources presented by Clayton on this thread are not sufficient to assert the top guy is not a Rothschild. I do not argue with that. I merely think the portion of Clayton's reasoning published here is not self-contradicting prima facie. I.e., it may be possible for Clayton to be sure the top guy is not a Rothschild, even if he does not know who actually is, and even if he never presented the source of this knowledge on this thread.
a) I don't believe there is a "top guy". The term I like to use is "undelegated power" - there are a handful of people in the world who have undelegated power. I have explained why I don't think there's a single top guy. Just doesn't make any sense.
b) The primary reason for disbelieving that "the Rothschilds rule the world" or anything similar is that they are newcomers - they did not rise to prominence until the early 19th century. I know that a lot of people think "so what? the world changes" but the fact is the Establishment really is a lot less changeable than other aspects of the social order. For me, "the Establishment" isn't just a single King or President who can be overthrown and replaced... it is the network of people (dynasties, actually) with undelegated power. It slowly morphs over time but much more slowly than particular governments or leaders, let alone the general public.
As new rulers rise to the pinnacles of power, they quickly find that there are others in the world just as powerful as themselves - people that cannot be beaten, intimidated or outwitted. This is the Establishment. The only option left is to cooperate with such people. You only need to look over the history of the American industrialists to see this pattern in action. They rapidly rose to immense wealth, began to convert that wealth into political power and then either joined the Establishment (via inter-marriage) or hit a brick wall and eventually fell from prominence.
Returning to the Rothschilds, when they rose to prominence, they did so in a pre-existing context of power, pieces of which still exist today. Long experience and deep knowledge of history (much of which is secret) is invaluable when it comes to ruling. The ruling powers already had a toolbox full of dirty tricks when the Rothschilds were taking their first baby steps - not to mention armies, navies, and the like. Given all of that, it just doesn't make any sense to say the Rothschilds - or anybody for that matter - just walked in one day and submitted the Establishment, particularly since there is no evidence of that.
I have explained why I don't think there's a single top guy. Just doesn't make any sense.
Sorry, I've used sloppy language for the sake of quick argument.
I think I understand your theory of mutually hostile (but still cooperating) pinnacles of the Establishment network.
You are still incredibly vague and are able to mask your vagueness with things like this,
deep knowledge of history (much of which is secret)
Of course. Thank God there are people like you that can clairvoyantly cipher the secret history of the world. Who are these people, or peoples, that constitute the old Establishment? It's probably still the Venitian Nobles, right? Judging from the ever expanding power of the Vatican I'd say that's realistic. And the Knights Templar. Groups so secret that people think they haven't existed for hundreds of years, but that still pull the strings of power. Strings that only you and Alex Jones can see...
Which of the U.S. Founders were involved in wet work for this Establishment? Or was it just all of them?
Clayton:The primary reason for disbelieving that "the Rothschilds rule the world" or anything similar is that they are newcomers - they did not rise to prominence until the early 19th century.
The trouble with that view is that the overwhelming majority of the wealth ever produced in human history has been produced from, say, 1800-present. Think of it like this. The old kings of Europe had a powerful fleet of wooden ships for eons. But then the steel dreadnought was invented all of the sudden, and Rothschild and other financiers managed to jump on this new technology first. All the accumulated power of the kings is then almost meaningless. Substitute land-wealth for wooden ships, and trade/banking/industrial wealth for dreadnoughts.
And on a related note, I'm not sure that the brute force (armies et al) versus money comparison really makes sense, as the former is nothing without the latter. Any idiot can raise an army and conquer the world if he has unlimited funds. Now, if we're thinking about only one State, then it would be plausible to suggest that whoever controls the State is going to remain dominant over any newly rich merchants therein, since there's really no way for the merchants to translate their wealth into force to fight and defeat the current rulers, considering that a merchant can't exactly build an army all of the sudden under the nose of his government. However, if the merchants are international, and can pit States against one another, and in that way punish any State that doesn't play ball....well that's a different story. I'd say that sounds pretty similar to what actually happened.
Just to be clear: there's no question that States are the most powerful institutions, no corporation comes remotely close. The issue is who controls those institutions? Is it the persons who formally constitute the State (kings, ministers, congressman, etc) or is it people who are not formally members of the government? I say the latter, and in particular international financiers.
Of course. Thank God there are people like you that can clairvoyantly cipher the secret history of the world.
Who are these people, or peoples, that constitute the old Establishment? It's probably still the Venitian Nobles, right? Judging from the ever expanding power of the Vatican I'd say that's realistic.
And the Knights Templar. Groups so secret that people think they haven't existed for hundreds of years, but that still pull the strings of power. Strings that only you and Alex Jones can see...
"All the files have been made public". Sure they have.
I'd like to find my quote saying that. Lest you place words in my mouth...which is a strawman, no?
The Vatican is immensely powerful
Yeah, that is why they hold their gold at the NY Fed. They want to donate it to the U.S. Establishment when/if SHTF.
So, you think you know as much as the Queen of England does about British involvement in the World Wars?
I never claimed that. You do. You claim to have some kind of insight into world matters without any evidence.
And the Knights Templar. Groups so secret that people think they haven't existed for hundreds of years, but that still pull the strings of power. Strings that only you and Alex Jones can see... Strawman. How is that a strawman? Because I gave an actual institution that used to be part of the world Establishment? The founding Fathers had massive Freemason connections. So, all Masons are part of the conspiracy, huh? Sounds like a glittering generalization. Yet another fallacy coming from Madame Blavatsky (didn't she have a "secret history of the world" too?). You want to have much to say, but don't want to be bothered with "verification" or "evidence." A good little infowarrior; a shyster. "The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19 | Post Points: 20
The founding Fathers had massive Freemason connections.
So, all Masons are part of the conspiracy, huh? Sounds like a glittering generalization. Yet another fallacy coming from Madame Blavatsky (didn't she have a "secret history of the world" too?).
You want to have much to say, but don't want to be bothered with "verification" or "evidence." A good little infowarrior; a shyster.
Clayton:The Vatican is immensely powerful, I don't understand how people keep making out like the Vatican is past its prime and all this crap. Yeah, sure, attendance is way down in the US... but so what? The Catholic faith has always been larger outside the US than inside, so I don't understand how people keep extrapolating from low US attendance and the mostly US-centric child-molestation scandals to "the Vatican is spent."
Certainly the Vatican is one of the most powerful NGOs in the world, but it's not a State anymore (with the unimportant exception of Citta Vaticana). The only way the Vatican could be a significant power in the world today is if it controlled or had significant influence in powerful States, for which I see no evidence, at least outside Italy.
at least outside Italy.
Or Brazil.
The Vatican is immensely powerful, I don't understand how people keep making out like the Vatican is past its prime and all this crap. Yeah, sure, attendance is way down in the US... but so what? The Catholic faith has always been larger outside the US than inside, so I don't understand how people keep extrapolating from low US attendance and the mostly US-centric child-molestation scandals to "the Vatican is spent."
1. Catholic population is also falling rapidly in Europe - the former stronghold of Catholicism, where the Vatican itself resides. Atheism is gaining strongly there.
2. The only countries in which Catholicism is not declining are the poor, Third World ones (mostly in Africa and Latin America).
3. In the countries where Catholicism is not declining, it is becoming increasingly infiltrated by Marxist 'liberation theology', especially amongst the Jesuits. Now I've asked you in another thread and I did not receive a reply to this question: is that phenomenon part of the plot or is it an outside influence?
4. The past half-century has had Catholicism continuously watering itself down and ecumenising in order to follow modern trends. It no longer sets societal trends, but merely follows them.
5. Child-molestation scandals should not be considered 'mostly US-centric':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Australia
Their popularity in the media shows how little the establishment favours Catholicism.
Aristippus:In the countries where Catholicism is not declining, it is becoming increasingly infiltrated by Marxist 'liberation theology', especially amongst the Jesuits.
That in itself doesn't indicate a decline in the power of the Vatican as an organization. Whatever the Catholic flock believes, the Vatican maintains the same power as before provided it maintains the same role vis a vis the faithful.
Sure, but I wasn't arguing that it necessarily means that "in itself". Clayton maintains that the Jesuits are the vanguard of the Vatican's plotting. So the question is, have they been infiltrated? And if so, does this not call into question the power of the Vatican?
The trouble with that view is that the overwhelming majority of the wealth ever produced in human history has been produced from, say, 1800-present.
But I think that's less important to the Power Elite analysis - most of that wealth is the result of the engine of capitalism: the masses producing goods to be consumed by the masses (I can't remember who I got this quote from... Sowell? Friedman?)
Think of it like this. The old kings of Europe had a powerful fleet of wooden ships for eons. But then the steel dreadnought was invented all of the sudden, and Rothschild and other financiers managed to jump on this new technology first. All the accumulated power of the kings is then almost meaningless. Substitute land-wealth for wooden ships, and trade/banking/industrial wealth for dreadnoughts.
The financiers never operated armies... at most, they financed them. And I disagree that the power of a certain group of the Establishment becomes meaningless once they fall behind the military cutting-edge. What you're forgetting is that ruling is about ruling people and even if you can military defeate the native ruler, it's often a good idea to keep him around in order to streamline the process of ruling. I think Machiavelli discusses this problem in regards to a territory newly acquired... you (the Prince) can either rule it in person, or you can rule it from afar. If you rule it in person (wiping out the existing ruling hierarchy), your holdings are more secure. If you rule it from afar, it is at much greater risk of being lost to revolution... but then it's also less difficult and costly.
And on a related note, I'm not sure that the brute force (armies et al) versus money comparison really makes sense, as the former is nothing without the latter.
That's missing the point.. First of all, all the money in the world won't buy Warren Buffet or Bill Gates an aircraft carrier fleet or a nuke. They would never be permitted to have one. Hence, if they aim to take over a government, they are limited to the means of politics and subtlety; their target is not. In other words, they are handicapped from the outset. Second, their target government is itself much more well-versed in the means of politics and subtlety to which they are limited; they are twice-handicapped. Third, while a government may genuinely be in a position where it cannot raise its own defense adequately, it almost always has recourse to assistance from other governments, even if this entails ceding some power. Better the devil you know.
Any idiot can raise an army and conquer the world if he has unlimited funds. Now, if we're thinking about only one State, then it would be plausible to suggest that whoever controls the State is going to remain dominant over any newly rich merchants therein, since there's really no way for the merchants to translate their wealth into force to fight and defeat the current rulers, considering that a merchant can't exactly build an army all of the sudden under the nose of his government. However, if the merchants are international, and can pit States against one another, and in that way punish any State that doesn't play ball....well that's a different story. I'd say that sounds pretty similar to what actually happened.
I think that's attributing hyper-competence to the industrial/banking/merchant class. It's "incredible". There's no reason to believe why they should suddenly be so much more competent at the dirty tricks of ruling than the long-established ruling families themselves. I think it's a mistake to think of the wars as a takeover of the ruling class by the merchant class; rather, I see it as a treacherous cannibalism of one segment of the Establishment by another segment, perhaps with the aid and financing of wealthy interests such as the Rothschilds.
Well, I take a more diminutive view of the financiers. The mafia have a word for them: bookies. That's all they are. The ruling Elites are something different and more complex... they're a brand, a genetic club. There is turnover in the ranks of the club (the "13 illuminati bloodlines" stuff is disinfo nonsense) but it is a lot slower than you might initially imagine. Queen Elizabeth II, for example, can reliably trace her bloodline back to William the Conqueror who died in 1087. Can you reliably trace your bloodline back 100 years, let alone 1,000 years, let alone any royalty or nobility, let alone a bloodline consisting almost exclusively of ruling monarchs?
You might scoff, "What superstitious nonsense... as if real power turns on some dusty pedigree". But it does. Because the single most important question that confronts every person of power (nobility, royalty, whatever) is succession. Passing on the family business. To pass it on, you have to take a spouse and produce an heir. Now - let's say you're the King of Ruritania - would you rather marry the daughter of some random commoner who managed to make something of himself in business or would you rather marry the daughter of someone whose pedigree stretching back to time immemorial is a bunch of kick-asses? Also, certain marriages can enable annexation of new territories (which, being perpetual tax-revenue generators, are far more valuable than a big pile of gold). This is why the Establishment is a club.
First of all, all the money in the world won't buy Warren Buffet or Bill Gates an aircraft carrier fleet or a nuke.
Actually, it is not difficult to buy nukes. And Gates' money could buy him a few dozen of them at their price.
I think it's a mistake to think of the wars as a takeover of the ruling class by the merchant class; rather, I see it as a treacherous cannibalism of one segment of the Establishment by another segment, perhaps with the aid and financing of wealthy interests such as the Rothschilds.
I like how right here you say that when the rulers squabble amongst themselves, you call it "treacherous." And also how you admit here that the Rothschilds are at the top echelons of power if they are aiding in the "cannibalism (you are what you eat) of one segment...by another segment." I think you are losing the plot.
Also, certain marriages can enable annexation of new territories (which, being perpetual tax-revenue generators, are far more valuable than a big pile of gold). This is why the Establishment is a club.
It can also work the other way...Ireland, the U.S., or Princess Diana could all be counterexamples.
the "13 illuminati bloodlines" stuff is disinfo nonsense
followed by,
Because the single most important question that confronts every person of power (nobility, royalty, whatever) is succession.
Plot. Lost.
@Aristophanes: Let me explain the distinction. Oh wait, no, I have better things to do with my time.
I have better things to do with my time.
Probably not reading anything that has to do with history or geopolitics. haha
Or respond to your inaccuracies that other point out concerning either the Vatican's waning influence, the facile nature of aqcuiring nukes if one wants them, or the contradiction pointed out in my last post.
I especially liked this part,
Queen Elizabeth II, for example, can reliably trace her bloodline back to William the Conqueror who died in 1087. Can you reliably trace your bloodline back 100 years, let alone 1,000 years, let alone any royalty or nobility, let alone a bloodline consisting almost exclusively of ruling monarchs?
but at the same time,
we can't forget that! Everything anyone else says, even though it is identical to your own sentiments on the issue, is disinfo. ahahahhaaha
Clayton =