nourishing obscurity

This is Part 2.  Part 1 was here.

When someone generally sympathetic towards this blog’s articles, someone like  Richard From TEV writes of:

“the Global elite that I am not sure exists in the first place”

… after some of them have just been named, shown their interrelationship and what they have actually done to harness the world food supply – not just here but on quite a few websites dealing with these matters – then that’s a good indicator of the magnitude of the problem we have in getting the news out to the world and having got it out, then having it seriously considered.

This post today is not so much concerned with the Nefarious Ones themselves but with what happens when the public does eventually perceive a rogue group, often either a stalking horse for the real rogues or only the visible manifestation of a broader malaise.

Who are these groups today?  Well, in Britain, in people’s minds, they’re the greedy Westminster politicians, the bankers, the EU, Elfansafetee and The Dark Lord Mandelson and in America they’re the bankers again plus the multinational corporations such as Exxon and rogue corps like JPM nd GS.

While these groups do deserve to get theirs and sometimes come a cropper, unfortunately the culprits behind them do not.

The best America could ever have hoped for was in Andrew Jackson’s day when the power allowed Nicholas Biddle, of the B of the USA to carry the can:

Biddle wrote to a federal judge in February 1834: “This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank.”

By the fall of that year, Biddle was so reviled for his nationwide curtailment of credit that he was hunted by mobs in Philadelphia, forcing him to bar the doors of his house and post armed guards.

Good stuff but such victories are few and far between.  The financial power which actually ran the banks, the Peabody Morgans, themselves in thrall to the European power, simply went AWOL and popped up once more when it was safe to do so.

One of the traditional baddy groups was Standard Oil and in fact  oil men in general today, the Rockefeller Seven Sisters:

By the end of the ‘sixties, [1960s], in spite of the opposition of OPEC and the competition from intruders, the seven sisters were still the dominant powers in world oil. Between 1960 and 1966 their share of oil production outside North America and the Communist countries, had actually gone up from 72 to 76 percent, leaving only 24 percent for all other companies.

It’s not necessary to recount the Rockefeller complicity in Nazi Germany while those in the know in the 30s knew what Hitler was up to and that America could well be forced to enter the eventual war as they’d done the first time round.   We’re talking here of serious traitors to the U.S.A., people who should have been executed for their crimes against the people, given the mood of the time, yet still deeply affecting U.S. policy today through organs like the CFR and TLC.

The anatomy of these strange industrial organisms has often baffled the economists, as well as the politicians who looked into them. J. E. Hartshorn, analysing them in 1962, had described how they appeared to live on an imaginary island — ‘the Shell Company of Atlantis’.

The companies have frequently seemed to inhabit a no-man’s land between the defined areas of governments and business — an impression increased by the strange lifestyle of the oil executives, who seem hardly to touch ground between their international adventures.

How powerful were/are they?  Here were the world’s 12 largest manufacturing corporations ranked by assets in 1972 with Seven Sister corporations asterisked*:

Rank	Company	Assets($000)	Sales ($000)	Rank
1*	Exxon	21,558,257	20,309,753	2
2*	Royal Dutch/Shell	20,066,802	14,060,307	4
3	General Motors	18,273,382	30,435,231	1
4*	Texaco	2,032,174	8,692,991	10
5	Ford	11,634,000	20,194,400	3
6	IBM	10,792,402	9,532,593	7
7*	Gulf	9,324,000	6,243,000	12
8*	Mobil	9,216,713	9,166,332	8
9	Nippon Steel	8,622,916	5,364,332	17
10	ITT	8,617,897	8,556,826	11
11*	BP	8,161,413	5,711,555	15
12*	Socal	8,084,193	5,829,487	14

Choike notes:

Rockefeller’s main area of concern became Saudi Arabia. The oil companies, by various stratagems, had entrenched themselves with King Ibn Saud. The king, worried that Israel would one day threaten his country and strengthen the Israeli lobby in Washington, needed something that would give him an edge.

The State Department, at the urging of the Rockefellers, said it could only follow a pro-Saudi polity without upsetting Israel by using Exxon (ARAMCO) as a front. This information was given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was so sensitive that committee staffers were not even allowed to see it.

What came out of the discussions between Exxon and Ibn Saud is known as “the Golden Gimmick” in the inner sanctums of the Rockefeller board rooms. The American oil companies agreed to pay a subsidy to the Saudi ruler of not less than $50 million a year, based on the amount of Saudi oil pumped.

The State Department would then allow the American companies to declare such subsidy payments as “foreign income tax,” which Rockefeller, for example, could deduct from Exxon’s U.S. taxes.

With production of cheap Saudi oil soaring, so did the subsidy payments soar. This is one of the greatest scams perpetrated upon the American public. The bottom line of the plan was that huge foreign aid payments were made annually to the Saudis under the guise of “subsidies.” When the Israeli government uncovered the scheme, it too, demanded “subsidies” which today amount to $13 billion per annum — all at the expense of the American taxpayers.

So, to summarize, Rockefeller goes into Saudi on a sweetheart deal involving subsidies, being semi-governmental.  Meanwhile, the American public reap no benefit and still pay steadily inflating market price for their gas.  And where do the actual profits go?  No need to say, is there?

Nothing substantial ever gets ploughed back into the country except for grants to such organizations like Planned Parenthood, a global socialist front who are achieving roughly the same in the U.S.A. as the Monsanto seeds are doing in Africa – it’s all the same aim in the end.

Sometimes the word gets out because in this information age, even where the MSM is tied up, it is impossible to keep it all in but even here, the agreed visible targets, the scapegoats, the stalking horses get it in the neck while the real money quietly retires into the background.

Once the tide turns

The tide does turn and the Russian revolution, a planned event in the way the Bolsheviks took control, is a good example of this.  It’s now fairly common knowledge that Lenin and Trotsky were funded, with Kuhn Loeb somewhere in the mix and at least some of that came through New York – take your pick of sources:

Joseph Nedava estimates Trotsky’s 1917 income at $12 per week, “supplemented by some lecture fees.” Trotsky was in New York in 1917 for three months, from January to March, so that makes $144 in income from Novy Mir and, say, another $100 in lecture fees, for a total of $244.

Of this $244 Trotsky was able to give away $310 to his friends, pay for the New York apartment, provide for his family – and [somehow] find the $10,000 that was taken from him in April 1917 by Canadian authorities in Halifax.

Trotsky claims that those who said he had other sources of income are “slanderers” spreading “stupid calumnies” and “lies,” but unless Trotsky was playing the horses at the Jamaica racetrack, it can’t be done.

For a strange source of confirmation, see Christian G. Rakovsky’s interview with Stalin’s foreign agent, Gavriil G. Kusmin, witnessed by Dr. Joseé  Landowsky, in 1938:

Rakovsky said, “in particular through those same bankers who had financed Japan in 1905, i.e., Jacob Schiff and the brothers Warburg; that means through the great banking constellations, through one of the five banks who are members of the Federal Reserve, through the bank of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. . . . also other American and European bankers, such as Guggenheim, Hanquer, Breitung, Aschber, the ‘Nye-Banken’ of Stockholm.

I was there “by chance,” there in  Stockholm, and participated in the transmission of funds. Until Trotzky arrived, I was the only person who was an intermediary from the revolutionary side.”

Some Marxists will immediately point out that Rakovsky was saying anything under Stalin’s duress at that time to avoid the firing squad but it’s also been said that he was “deceiving with the truth”.

Either way, as was mentioned at the beginning, this post is concerned with people’s reactions, rather than with the dastardliness of the fall guys.

The accepted fall guys

There are many puzzles in the international political game and one is that, with the media controlled, why some things are allowed to be presented to the public, for example the expenses scandal in Westminster and the banker bailouts.

The scapegoating of Fred Goodwin and the apparent indifference of JPM and GS to their vilification across America suggests that they, like the Dark Lord himself, are just stalking horses and later fall guys, meant to take the heat for the hidden crims, people like hedge fund managers who have gone to ground.

The Fed, though roundly castigated and exploded by mainly libertarian pundits is still seem as an arm of government by most people who are willing to lay the blame for their woes on the bankers and speculators in general, along with the “no-man’s land” of JPM and GS but escaping the wrath of the people are the Fed itself, the other CBs with their FrRB and fiat money and the big money players are not even known of by the people.

There is an inevitable dark logic to all of this:

1.  People can’t be allowed to live in peace and prosperity because then the control and command of the world’s economies cannot proceed.  Therefore a cycle of boom and bust goes on but every so often, particularly when there are major political moves being made, it becomes a recession and the Money cleans up on the rubble.

2.  The people, having been f—ed around with, need scapegoats and simply must be provided with a few.  Step in Goodwin, perhaps Bernanke et al.  The people who have been muttering until now, finally rise up through talkback radio, letters to the editor, demonstrations and marches and of late, the internet, the culprits are removed [to pop up later somewhere else - see Blair] people start up the TPA or Albion Alliance and the real culprits stay low to the ground for some time.

3.  If it’s time for a really big change, a paradigm shift in fact, e.g. Gordo’s new financial order and the restructuring of the UK, involving the dismantling of England, the people have to be so angry with the Westminster style of government and the corruption of politicians that they will not oppose its sweeping away and replacement with the “lesser-of-two-evils management” of the EU.  I really don’t think my fellow political pundits realize how little of what we take as common knowledge is shared by the average apolitical Brit out there and how much the hip pocket overrides both memory and common sense.

I hear talk of revolution and how people are sick to death of the go-soft policy of the courts, the fear of the ASBO, the insane wheely-bin policing, the removal of our right to defend our homes and so on.

Along comes a messiah type who promises to sweep away all that muddle and woolly-headedness, to give the people back their dignity, their right to have a say, the right to defend their homes and better than that, a solution to their economic woes.  He rides in, as Hitler did, as Lenin did, and proceeds to give what he promised, in particular job security.

He can do no wrong.

Protests over the dismantling of England never get into the press and those who do get heard never get heeded – security for your family versus some vague notion of Englishness?  No contest, particularly if the trappings of nationhood are still retained by the usurper to soften the blow.

The cost is never spelt out and hey presto, before the people know it, there is a Third Reich or a USSR.  Name one revolution in any developed country which has resulted in a free trading, free speech society?

So the idea of the glorious revolution of the Brit shouting, “Enough!” is very quickly going to be sidetracked into what had always been laid out for it.  These people have been doing this for centuries – they’re pros.  It’s all been factored in, a certain amount of bloodshed takes place, they lose some of their own expendables and then things get back on the track they always were.

Fly in the ointment

While the internet has been integral in bringing hardcore porn and destructive anti-familial values to kids, a most important ongoing work, it’s had its downside as well and that is the rise of the megablogger but how immune is he/she to the lure of political advancement or the rustle of the folding stuff?  Of course, no one on my blogroll would act like that, as a closet Them apologist but still – how much would it take?

They bought the Irish, didn’t they?

And what of me writing these things?  Where do I get off?  Well actually, I fulfil a useful function too – the more people heed me, in a minor, peripheral way, the more it reinforces that They will always win in the end.  It’s the old “resistance is useless” or the “abandon hope, all ye who enter here” chant .

So one little blogger is hardly of great consequence to Them.  However, something like Albion Alliance just might be of consequence because there are distinct possibilities in the New Year.  It might come to nothing but it might very well be embraced by the most unlikely people [as has already happened] and the exponential damage which could be done to the game plan cannot be fully factored in.

It would only take people to be angered by some inanity early next year, perhaps on the part of the EU and people might flock to organized and known anti-EU groups, particularly if the oxygen of publicity were to fan the flames.

Now if they were well enough organized themselves and worked as a team, with a clear game plan of their own, then partial victory might be possible.  Going back again to a question Svali was asked – how can they be beaten, she replied, I thought sensibly, not offering any great panacea – and I’d like to suggest this to Mark Wadsworth as a possible way through – she said:

On the negative side

[They] often boast that their best protection is that no one would believe what was happening. They also have their own media blitz campaign, one that is pretty effective.

The evidence is there, but in my opinion, the average person does NOT want to know, and even when confronted with it, will look the other way.

They are all infiltrated. [Meaning that it is not only the leaders who are bad news, as the pro-admin Iranian demonstrations yesterday showed - there are fifth columnists all over the place at one's own level].

These are the most cautionary people on earth. They try to leave absolutely NO tracks.

On the positive side

They are arrogant, and this could be their downfall. They view the common man as “sheep” with no intelligence. They are full of pride, believe they are invulnerable (see above) and that any press about them is the equivalent of a gnat to be swatted. Arrogant people make mistakes, and they are becoming more blatant and open in recent years.

Once the down side is apparent to one or more of them and provided there seems a good chance we’d prevail, there might be some exodus although it would take a brave, selfless, almost suicidal person to do that.

Their arrogance seems the most exploitable avenue. If they could be publicly asked soft questions which led them to reveal their arrogance, which highlighted it, e.g. with Bercow, this might well have an effect on people in a constituency and this is a most vulnerable time for them – when seeking the approval of voters or currying favour.

It’s a bit like a match between an attacking powerhouse and a defensive team, the latter who rely on finding little fissures and exploiting them – these are the one percenters, the one percent plays which can tip the balance.  It’s how the Viet Cong did it, on the grounds that it was their country, not the invader’s, just as this is our country, not that of Brussels.  Lose the battles but grind them down and win the war.

That’s how the Russians beat the Germans – sheer numbers, obstinacy and perseverance in the end, never letting up – when one of us goes down, another steps into his/her place.  This country has done that before.  It takes courage on our part.

And always the same message – these are our enemies we’re fighting, not some benign papa, mama or nanny with our best interests at heart.

It’s the only way any major turnaround ever occurred in history.

Finally

This post is written from the small c conservative perspective but I’ve spoken to people who truly believe that “the compassionate society” [read "positive discrimination"] is a good thing and that the rogue corporations are “greedy capitalists” [which they are] but in utilizing that very weasel word “capitalist” is revealed the mindset which would be willing to stand by while the free enterprise system and markets as a whole were swept away or so tightly restricted by government that they can barely operate – a situation we’re close to in the UK today if you look at our productivity, tax regime and mindset of “hit the rich and borrow big”.

The usual punter on that side of politics sees us moving towards a more egalitarian utopia where political activity means railing at rogue regimes around the world and going to Live Aid concerts, where the government shows compassion for single mothers and others less fortunate than them and so on.

The MSM focuses on rogue bankers and greedy politicians, easy concepts to internalize but never touches on the silent EU takeover and dismantling of England as a concept, as a sovereign unit, the other home countries don’t care because they’d like to take England down a peg or two anyway and if it means more money, then fine and the more the words “greedy capitalists” are mentioned, the more amenable people will be to “them doing something about it”.

Them here means the government – the great mass of people in the middle really believe that the government runs the show but as Yes Minister showed, the political head of a department is itinerant, dependent on PH advice and is lobbied by some very powerful groups on both sides of politics, as well as being required to toe the party line.

Admittedly not at this moment but the country is usually under Prime Ministerial rule; however the PM himself only got there through patronage in the first place and those people want to see results.  That both Blair and Brown plus Milliband and Osborne were Bilderberg attendees, with Davignon commenting, “We’re excellent talent spotters,” does not seem to have been Cameron’s open route.  Rather it’s the old money behind him [Rothschilds connections in the family].

With a bleak financial and jobs outlook for 2010, with a general election, with the Lib Dems claiming they are the “progressives” but actually being confirmed Europhiles who will acquiesce to the Euro takeover, the great danger is that when the naughty capitalists are reined in and made to toe the state line, more will be lost than what middle Britain actually had in mind in wanting the rot to stop.

This is a far greater task than getting people to pledge to an EU referendum – getting them to actually see that “reining in the naughty capitalists” is an open invitation to reconstitute the whole of Europe on global federalist lines, quite alien to our traditional way of life and totalitarian in nature, under the day to day control of regional enforcers.  The salami tactics of one little privation here, one little privation there is an effective one, all the while vilifying the capitalists when in fact, it is this silent power behind the world’s events, which these two posts have referred to, which is the 3rd force in politics and remains the effective government.

How many people in the country would see it that way?  How many people even give a thought to the BofE or to the BIS?  To the Committee of 300 or the Round Table groups?  To this country’s creditors – who they actually are?

Why are the Seven Sisters so powerful in the States?  Not only because they are one of the main engine rooms of America’s wealth but because they have been for two centuries and have the infrastructure of society under control.  It makes only sense that your most financially powerful people get a big say in your organization.

Who is the equivalent in the UK?  The City?  It’s too far-ranging a word.  Which elements in the City?  Can you see Brown reining in the Rothschilds?  The major hedge fund managers?  The old money which can buy or sell him?  But if the nature of this reining in were to change the paradigm along the lines the Rothschilds are implementing in Europe, i.e. the Brussels dictum, then this “reining in” would place them in de jure as well as de facto charge across the whole political map, a map which does not recognize “outdated” geographical boundaries.

It will not be until middle Britain recognizes all this that patriots will get any significant numbers behind them to take on the global creep into this land.  We are too fragmented and half the population doesn’t even see that there is anything wrong beyond a few privations and a recession Gordon tells us we are now coming out of.  How then are they going to rally behind the call to take on the real power, the 3rd force controlling politics?

Let alone the dismaying fact that every pundit, even such as myself, has it all “taped out” in his mind, all laid out and knows wot the country needs, guv.  Everyone is a pub philosopher, jostling to be read or heard.  Everyone is complete in his/her wisdom in his/her head and the result of this explosion of opinion on the web is consequent fragmentation – no two people can agree on the way forward, let alone what the problem is in the first place.

The mob chasing Biddle only did so because its own hip-pockets had been affected and because the charismatic Andy Jackson told them so and they trusted him, not for any esoteric political concept about an “invisible enemy”.  Jackson was clever in that he was able to focus it all on one man – the people understand the concept of one melodramatic villain; they do not understand the many-headed invisible hydra.

It seems to me that this is the biggest task – to show people how they are truly being robbed blind by cold cynics who would sell them down the drain and who care not a toss for any concept of nation – it needs a documentary of quick grab size to suddenly appear on people’s boxes to shake them up, the angle being that it’s their money, from their pockets, being syphoned away.

Then there’s maybe a sniff of a chance of victory.

Filed under: Politics & economics, Society & human issues