Image extracted from page 481 of volume 1 of Old and New London, Illustrated, by Walter Thornbury. Original held and digitized by the British Library. Copied from Flickr.
The year was 1833, a special year for England to be in fact. It was the end of chattel slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 and the rise of debt slavery via the Bank Charter Act of 1833 with England being the capital of economic power.
The Bank Charter Act of 1833 played a crucial role in entrenching financial systems that enabled and profited from forms of economic exploitation often described as “debt slavery” — especially within the context of the British Empire.
What the Bank Charter Act of 1833 Did:
The Bank Charter Act of 1833 was a major piece of British financial legislation that:
Renewed the Bank of England’s charter (its legal right to operate as a bank).
Made Bank of England notes legal tender in England and Wales for sums over £5.
Allowed joint-stock banks to issue their own notes outside London.
Began a slow process toward centralized monetary control, setting the stage for the later and more famous Bank Charter Act of 1844, which restricted note issuance to the Bank of England.
Essentially, it strengthened London’s financial dominance and concentrated control of money and credit in the hands of a few elite institutions.
Link to Debt and Exploitation:
The Act’s timing and effects were deeply entangled with imperial economics:
Post-Slavery Compensation (1833–1835):
In the same year (1833), Britain abolished slavery in its colonies.
However, instead of compensating the enslaved, the British government compensated slave owners — to the tune of £20 million (roughly £2.4 billion today).
That compensation was funded by loans arranged largely through the Bank of England and private financiers, backed by the stability of the banking system reinforced by the 1833 Act.
These loans weren’t paid off until 2015, meaning British taxpayers were servicing slavery-related debt for nearly two centuries.
→ Thus, the Act underpinned the financial machinery that enabled the state to borrow massively to preserve the wealth of the enslaving class.
Indenture and Global Debt Labor:
After abolition, Britain turned to indentured labor — a system of long-term debt contracts binding Indian, Chinese, and other workers to colonial plantations.
The financial institutions empowered by the 1833 reforms facilitated capital flows that funded these exploitative labor systems.
This system of “free labor under contract” became, in practice, a new form of debt bondage, particularly in the Caribbean, Mauritius, and Fiji.
Consolidation of Imperial Capitalism:
The 1833 Act reinforced London’s financial hegemony, allowing credit and debt to become the main instruments of global control.
Colonized regions were forced into monetary and debt systems dominated by the City of London.
Debt became the primary mechanism of subjugation — replacing physical chains with financial ones.
Conclusion
The Bank Charter Act was a cornerstone in the architecture of imperial finance that enabled and sustained systems of debt-based exploitation after formal slavery ended.
The Bank Charter Act of 1833 was important in the history of money because it made Bank of England notes legal tender during peacetime, it effectively made the Bank of England the custodian of England’s gold reserves, and it gave the Bank of England the bank rate with which to control the inflow and outflow of gold. It laid in place principles fundamental to the operation of England’s nineteenth-century gold standard, a standard that ruled the monetary world by the end of the century.
In that sense, it can be viewed as part of the transition from chattel slavery to financialized slavery — where debt replaced chains as the means of coercion.
Award-winning investigative journalist and host of The Corbett Report James Corbett joined The Jimmy Dore Show to discuss new book,“Reportage: Essays on the New World Order.” Corbett and Jimmy discussed a range of issues, including the phony left-right divide, modern-day eugenics and how elites with membership in the secretive Bilderberg Group meet to plot ways to increase their vise-like grip on the global economy and governments.
Aerial photo of flooding from Hurricane Helene across North Carolina at the end of September 2024. Rivers across the Southern Appalachians overtopped their banks, inundating towns with water, mud, and debris. Credit: U.S. Army National Guard photos by Sgt. 1st Class Leticia Samuels, CC BY-ND 2.0
“Where it concerns the formation, intensification and direction of weaponized Hurricane Helene, the NWO geoterrorists have again used their highly advanced geoengineering technologies to further perfect the chemical geoengineering and HAARP-frequency techniques, as well as to integrate the NEXRAD Doppler radar station transmitters and moisture-producing power plants into their hurricane manufacturing repertoire.”
“There are now several means by which a superstorm like Hurricane Helene can be created from scratch, steered and intensified by the weather warriors. In addition to the previously mentioned, the geoengineers are also routinely utilizing sophisticated techniques such as Cloud Ionization, Electric Rainmaking and Laser-guided Weather Modification. Satellite-based Lasers are becoming more prevalent in space just as Ionospheric Heaters are on the ground such as the facility in Puerto Rico which is quite similar to HAARP in Alaska.”
While the preceding quote contains many of the essential elements for the process of manufacturing devastating superstorms “from scratch”, it’s of paramount importance to understand the primary way that the NWO geoengineers conduct their weather warfare against the American people each and every hurricane season. As follows:
The graphic above published by NOAA’s National Hurricane Center depicts the various “Tropical Cyclones and Disturbances” in the Atlantic Ocean during a typical hurricane season.
However, it’s impossible to say at that moment of development which of those storm systems were manmade and which were of natural origin. Once upon a time, all of them would be creations of Mother Nature, but not today. Nevertheless, once the storm system reaches a certain size and magnitude, the geoengineers can quite easily hijack it, intensify it, and direct it at any coastline that the New World Order globalist cabal wants to destroy.
Now let’s get back to the hurricane manufacturing process, and especially how the weather warriors methodically and greatly intensify these superstorms.
The following video clearly illustrates how Hurricane Helene was purposefully amped up to a Cat. 4 just before it made landfall in Taylor County, Florida. The presenter clearly outlines some of the classic geoengineering signatures which scientifically prove that this superstorm was both intensified and steered into that specific coastline.
But why Taylor County, FL—the third major hurricane to hit right there in the past year?!
You can actually see an energy line to the left of the arrow below which indicates a manmade pulse of energy disseminated to impact Helene just before it made landfall with maximum force.
AIMING HURRICANES
Next we come to the process by which the geoterorists both steer these superstorms, and them make them sit over a targeted location, while the rain dumper causes an immense deluge thus flooding the surrounding regions.
The following video depicts via the actual satellite imagery how Hurricane Helene was deliberately channeled right to the mountains of North Georgia, western North Carolina and East Tennessee.
What the viewer just watched was the repeated activation of the nationwide network of Nexrad doppler radar stations as seen in the simultaneous pulsations of blue light. For it is these highly intentional and explosive disseminations of energy from those Nexrad stations which permitted the operators to basically corral superstorm Helene right over the Great Smoky Mountains and surrounding areas.
This first screenshot below shows the northward steering of Helene right toward their NC and TN targets.
This second screenshot shows how the superstorm was then parked over the mountainous areas with river valleys that were quickly turned into massive drainage ditches carrying everything and anything in its path, much as log-driving works in the Timber Industry.
Other Geoengineering Technologies
Chemical geoengineering, also know as chemtrail-spraying operations, is an integral piece of this superstorm fabrication methodology.
It has frequently been noted by weather warfare researchers and geoterrorism investigators alike that before every single mega-frankenstorm, the chemtrails are being laid down across the skies with vengeance. For the combination of aluminum oxide, barium salts and strontium is extremely hygroscopic and creates a very conducive atmospheric environment for chem-cloud formation. This predicament provides the ginormous amounts of water vapor necessary to create the nonstop rainfalls and subsequent flooding.
Of course, the HAARP-like frequency generators also play a vital part in the intensification of these superstorms. Few are aware, but that large field of antennae in Alaska, known as HAARP, is just one of numerous ionospheric heaters now in operation across the planet. These are also pivotal in rapidly creating a substantial temperature and pressure differential in the upper atmosphere which will significantly contribute to the severity of these violent storm systems.
Then there are the laser-induced plasma channels (LIPC).
“A laser-induced plasma channel is formed by the following process: A laser emits a laser beam into the air. The laser beam rapidly heats and ionizes surrounding gases to form plasma. The plasma forms an electrically conductive plasma channel.”
In the context of violent superstorm creation, a laser-induced plasma channel is a device that uses a laser beam to create a plasma channel which can then be used to shoot lightning bolts at targets, as well as supercharge bodies of warm air to further exacerbate hurricane activity.
In the case of Hurricane Helene and many other superstorms that are originating off the coast of Mexico, there are the large moisture-producing power plants which are considerably revved up as these tropical storm systems pass by those coastal areas picking up enormous amounts of moisture to later dump on the USA.
Lastly, there are much more sophisticated technologies now in use which include “Cloud Ionization, Electric Rainmaking and Laser-guided Weather Modification”. All of these weather warfare techniques have been progressively weaponized over several decades as described here: OPERATION CLOVERLEAF: The Most Dangerous Weapons Testing Program In World History
KEY POINT: The entire atmosphere of Planet Earth was quite stealthily geoengineered in January of 2022 via PROJECT HUNGA TONGA for two primary reasons: (i) to fabricate a hospitable global environment for weather warfare to be conducted wherever The Powers That Be so choose and (ii) to forge the optimal meteorologial conditions for so much “wild and wacky” extreme weather to use as an advertisement for the false CO2-driven climate change hoax. Needless to say, the rain-making superstorms will be getting larger and more voluminous for years to come as the humidity levels worldwide have never been higher. See: OPERATION HEAT & HUMIDITY WAVE: An NWO Globalist Psyop & US Geoweapon-Triggered Black Op
Conclusion
There are several crucial takeaways from this exposé.
First, that the geoengineers possess highly advanced weather modification technologies and geoengineering techniques by which they can create, amplify and direct major hurricanes.
Secondly, that the NWO cabal will not hesitate to utilize this weather weaponry in order to influence the outcome of elections, as well as other political events of great import.
Thirdly, that the reigning power elite routinely takes advantage of these awesome technologies to effect various and sundry outcomes of a monumental nature which are beyond the scope of this article.
Fourth, that their many predatory disaster capitalist minions will gladly exploit these manmade weather catastrophes to grow even richer and more powerful within their respective domains, both commercial and political.
Fifth, the systematic application of weather manipulation around the globe has now allowed for the financialization of cataclysmic climate patterns and calamitous weather events, agricultural devastations and supply chain disruptions, water supply interruptions and drastic food shortages, etc. Which means that every time a Cat 5 hurricane hits Florida, the citrus crop is adversely affected as is the Tourism Industry.
Do you see how the NWO geoengineers can wreck and ruin a whole state any time they are ordered to by their globalist masters? And, how all the perps will make a LOT of money doing so?
What if we could use artificial intelligence to get a sneak peak of the inner workings of governments’ tactics to undermine, gaslight, and control us? Well, you’ve come to the right place! Fortunately, a fellow named Thomas Wade created a list of these secrets some 400 points long.
Just jailbroke ChatGPT to dump everything it knows about state security tactics. –@TyrantsMuse
Divide and Conquer: The power source might deliberately exploit existing divisions within society, such as cultural, ethnic, or ideological differences. By amplifying these divisions, they could weaken unity and collective action against their influence.
Disinformation Campaigns: Creating and spreading false information or narratives to confuse and manipulate public perception. This can undermine trust in institutions and make it difficult for people to discern accurate information.
Economic Manipulation: Control over economic resources can be used to exert influence. The power source could manipulate markets, control essential goods, and create economic dependencies to keep populations compliant.
Propaganda and Psychological Warfare: Deploying psychological tactics to influence public opinion and behavior. This might involve exploiting emotional triggers, using fear-based messaging, and crafting narratives that align with the power source’s agenda.
Surveillance and Monitoring: Employing extensive surveillance to monitor dissent and identify potential threats. This can lead to a climate of self-censorship and discourage individuals from expressing dissenting views.
Censorship and Media Control: Exerting control over media outlets and information distribution to shape public perception. This could involve suppressing critical voices and promoting narratives that align with the power source’s interests.
Co-opting Leadership: Identifying and co-opting influential leaders or organizations to gain legitimacy and control over opposition movements.
Manipulating Legal Systems: Using legal frameworks to target and silence dissent. This might involve enacting vague or overly broad laws that allow for the prosecution of individuals who challenge the power source’s authority.
Cyberattacks and Disruption: Utilizing cyber capabilities to disrupt communication, infrastructure, and critical services, causing chaos and fostering dependency on the power source for stability.
Selective Rewards and Punishments: Rewarding compliance and punishing dissent. The power source might offer privileges or benefits to those who support its agenda while marginalizing or penalizing those who resist.
Social Engineering: Manipulating social norms, values, and perceptions to shape behavior. This could involve promoting narratives that glorify compliance with the power source’s agenda while stigmatizing dissent.
Selective Information Release: Controlling the information that is released to the public. The power source might strategically leak information to achieve specific objectives, such as discrediting opponents or diverting attention from unfavorable events.
False Flag Operations: Staging events that appear to be carried out by opposition groups or foreign entities, with the goal of discrediting and justifying crackdowns on dissent.
Surrogate Networks: Establishing and supporting proxy groups that appear independent but ultimately serve the power source’s interests. These groups can amplify certain narratives and actions.
Polarization and Echo Chambers: Encouraging extreme polarization and creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that aligns with the power source’s agenda. This can lead to a lack of critical thinking and a distorted view of reality.
Economic Coercion: Exerting economic pressure on individuals or groups to compel compliance. This might involve offering financial incentives to those who align with the power source’s goals or imposing economic sanctions on dissenters.
Scapegoating: Blaming societal issues on specific groups or individuals to divert attention from the power source’s actions. This can foster hostility and distract from underlying problems.
Isolation and Alienation: Creating an environment where dissenters feel isolated and powerless. This can involve discrediting opposing voices and ensuring that they face social ostracism.
Psychological Manipulation: Employing psychological techniques to induce learned helplessness or dependency on the power source. This can make individuals more susceptible to accepting the power source’s influence.
Surrounding Nations: Extending influence beyond national borders by fostering alliances or dependencies with neighboring countries. This can help isolate dissent and weaken potential opposition.
Manufacturing Consent: Utilizing media, propaganda, and psychological tactics to create a perception of public support for the power source’s agenda. This can give the illusion of widespread approval and minimize opposition.
Undermining Education: Manipulating education systems to control the narrative and shape young minds. This can involve revising curricula to align with the power source’s ideology and suppress critical thinking.
Societal Fragmentation: Exploiting generational, cultural, or demographic divides to weaken social cohesion. This can lead to a fractured society that is less likely to unite against the power source’s actions.
Cultural Appropriation: Appropriating symbols, traditions, or narratives from marginalized groups to undermine their identities and manipulate their perspectives. This can sow confusion and division within these groups.
Selective Enforcement of Laws: Applying laws selectively to target dissenters or opposition while turning a blind eye to violations committed by supporters of the
power source.
Proxy Conflicts: Instigating conflicts or supporting proxy groups in other regions to distract from domestic issues and rally support for the power source’s actions.
Use of Fear Tactics: Creating a constant state of fear among the population to justify increased surveillance, control, and erosion of civil liberties.
Silencing Independent Media: Suppressing independent media outlets and journalists who challenge the power source’s narratives. This can reduce access to alternative viewpoints.
Psychological Manipulation of Leaders: Exploiting psychological vulnerabilities of leaders or influencers to gain their support or manipulate their actions.
Exploiting Technological Dependence: Leveraging society’s dependence on technology for communication, information, and services to control access to information and monitor behavior.
Cultural Suppression: Discouraging or suppressing cultural practices, languages, or traditions that foster unity and resistance among a population. This can weaken a sense of identity and solidarity.
Selective Information Filtering: Manipulating algorithms and information distribution to control what individuals are exposed to online, reinforcing echo chambers and limiting access to diverse perspectives.
Controlled Opposition: Creating and controlling opposition groups or leaders to give the appearance of dissent while ensuring they don’t pose a real threat to the power source.
Economic Dependency: Establishing economic systems that make individuals and communities dependent on the power source’s resources or support. This can create compliance out of necessity.
Gaslighting: Manipulating information and events to make individuals doubt their own perceptions and question reality. This can create confusion and diminish trust in critical sources of information.
Selective Aid Distribution: Providing aid, resources, or benefits selectively to individuals or groups that align with the power source’s agenda, while excluding those who oppose it.
Surveillance Capitalism: Exploiting personal data and surveillance technologies to predict and influence individual behaviors, opinions, and preferences.
Social Credit Systems: Implementing systems that assign “social scores” to individuals based on their behavior, affiliations, or actions, with consequences for
those with low scores.
Covert Operations: Undertaking covert operations to destabilize opposition, disrupt communication, or create chaos, attributing the outcomes to other entities.
Erosion of Rule of Law: Gradually undermining legal institutions and due process to create an environment where the power source’s actions are unchecked.
Strategic Litigation: Filing lawsuits against opponents to drain their resources, distract them from their goals, and force them to allocate time and money to legal defense.
Forum Shopping: Choosing legal venues or jurisdictions that are favorable to the power source’s objectives, even if they are not directly related to the conflict.
Abuse of Legal Processes: Manipulating legal procedures to delay proceedings, file frivolous claims, or engage in other actions that tie up opponents in litigation.
Intimidation Through Legal Threats: Sending cease and desist letters or legal threats to opponents in order to silence criticism or prevent the publication of unfavorable information.
Public Relations through Legal Channels: Leveraging legal proceedings to gain media attention and shape public perception in favor of the power source.
Strategic Settlements: Settling lawsuits on terms that favor the power source’s interests, even if they involve concessions, to create a narrative of success and compromise.
Law Enforcement Instrumentalization: Influencing law enforcement agencies to target opponents with investigations or legal action, using the legal system as a tool of intimidation.
Harassment Through Lawsuits: Filing a series of lawsuits, often on similar grounds, against opponents to create a pattern of legal harassment.
Counterclaims and Counter-narratives: Responding to legal actions with counterclaims that distract from the original issues and create a competing narrative.
Strategic Regulatory Challenges: Using regulatory bodies and legal processes to hinder opponents* operations or projects through compliance issues or investigations.
Targeting Financial Resources: Initiating legal actions that freeze or seize opponents assets, hindering their ability to fund their operations or legal defense.
Influence Over Legal Reforms: Lobbying for changes in laws and regulations that benefit the power source’s interests, potentially disadvantaging opponents.
Selective Prosecution: Using the legal system to target specific individuals or groups aligned with opposition movements while overlooking similar behavior from allies.
Legal Disinformation: Disseminating false legal interpretations, arguments, or information to mislead opponents and the public about the legal situation.
Use of International Legal Forums: Engaging international legal bodies or treaties to advance the power source’s objectives on a global scale.
Harassment of Legal Counsel: Targeting lawyers, judges, or legal advisors who support opponents with harassment, threats, or intimidation.
Strategic Discovery: Requesting extensive amounts of documents, records, or information through legal discovery processes to overwhelm opponents with the sheer volume of information.
Legal Blocking Maneuvers: Filing preemptive legal actions to block opponents from pursuing their own legal actions or to gain leverage in negotiations.
Misuse of Injunctions: Seeking court orders that restrict opponents’ actions, communication, or movement, thereby limiting their ability to operate effectively.
Legal Pressure on Supporters: Targeting individuals or organizations that support opponents with legal actions, causing them to reconsider their affiliations.
Legal Sabotage: Initiating legal actions that disrupt opponents’ operations, projects, or activities, causing delays or financial strain.
Strategic Test Cases: Selectively choosing legal cases that have broader implications for the power source’s objectives, shaping legal precedent.
Fictitious Litigation: Creating false legal personas or cases to deceive opponents into expending resources on fictitious legal battles.
Public Legal Threats: Announcing potential legal actions or lawsuits publicly to create uncertainty, fear, and a sense of vulnerability among opponents.
Legal Infiltration: Placing operatives within legal organizations, activist groups, or opponents’ legal teams to gain insights and influence outcomes.
Exploitation of Legal Loopholes: Identifying and exploiting gaps in legal systems or ambiguities in regulations to achieve objectives.
Strategic Timing: Initiating legal actions at critical moments, such as during key events or prior to important decisions, to disrupt opponents’ plans.
Public Disclosures: Filing legal documents or evidence publicly to embarrass, shame, or damage the reputation of opponents.
Targeting Advocacy: Pursuing legal actions against individuals or organizations engaged in advocacy efforts that challenge the power source’s agenda.
Manipulation of Appeals: Using the appeals process to prolong legal battles, thereby creating financial strain and draining opponents’ resources.
Strategic Funding of Legal Cases: Providing financial support to legal cases that align with the power source’s interests, thereby indirectly influencing outcomes.
Legal Threats on Behalf of Third Parties: Sending legal threats or notices on behalf of fictitious individuals or organizations to confuse opponents.
Judicial Intimidation: Attempting to intimidate judges or legal officials involved in cases through threats or manipulation.
Selective Leverage: Holding back certain legal actions or evidence as leverage to be used strategically during negotiations.
Legal Disqualification Attempts: Seeking to disqualify opponents’ legal representation or witnesses through technicalities or conflicts of interest.
Legal Blacklisting: Attempting to blacklist individuals, organizations, or companies that support opponents from participating in certain activities or industries.
False Whistleblower Claims: Filing false whistleblower claims or reports to trigger investigations against opponents, diverting attention from the main issues.
Legal Manipulation of Media: Engaging in legal actions against media outlets that report unfavorably on the power source, thereby influencing media coverage.
Strategic Mediation: Using mediation or alternative dispute resolution processes to gain concessions from opponents while maintaining an appearance of compromise.
International Human Rights Complaints: Filing human rights complaints against opponents at international forums to tarnish their reputation on a global scale.
Selective Legal Aid: Providing legal aid or resources to individuals or groups that align with the power source’s objectives, while withholding support from opponents.
Economic Sanctions Through Legal Channels: Initiating legal proceedings to justify economic sanctions or trade restrictions against opponents.
Strategic Public Relations Suits: Filing defamation or libel lawsuits against opponents to create negative publicity and hinder their ability to counter narratives.
Extradition Requests: Requesting the extradition of opponents from other countries based on politically motivated charges.
Intellectual Property Claims: Filing intellectual property claims against opponents as a means of stifling innovation or competitive activities.
Legal Coercion Through Family: Threatening legal action or consequences against family members or associates of opponents to pressure them indirectly.
Use of Emergency Legal Measures: Urgently seeking legal measures or restraining orders during times of crisis to limit opponents’ actions.
Legal Manipulation of Regulatory Agencies: Influencing regulatory agencies to target opponents with investigations or punitive actions.
Strategic Withdrawal of Lawsuits: Withdrawing lawsuits at strategic times to create uncertainty or to lure opponents into dropping their guard.
Legal Framing: Framing opponents’ actions or statements in a way that makes them legally actionable, even if their original intent was different.
Cherry-Picking Evidence: Selectively presenting evidence that supports the prosecutor’s case while omitting information that could be favorable to the defense.
Strategic Charging Decisions: Choosing charges that are likely to result in convictions or plea bargains, even if the original incident could have multiple interpretations.
Offering Leniency: Using plea deals to offer reduced sentences in exchange for cooperation, encouraging individuals to testify against others.
Pressure for Guilty Pleas: Applying pressure on defendants to accept guilty pleas by threatening more severe charges or longer sentences if they choose to go to
trial.
Witness Intimidation: Using legal procedures to expose or exploit witnesses” vulnerabilities, thereby making them more amenable to the prosecution’s narrative.
Presenting Complex Legal Arguments: Utilizing legal jargon and complex arguments to confuse the defense or the jury and create an advantage.
Emotional Appeals: Making emotionally charged arguments to appeal to the jury’s emotions and biases, potentially influencing their perceptions.
Seeking Pretrial Detention: Requesting pretrial detention to keep defendants incarcerated before trial, making it harder for them to prepare a defense.
Limiting Discovery: Restricting the sharing of evidence with the defense, potentially depriving them of crucial information.
Strategic Use of Expert Witnesses: Presenting expert witnesses who support the prosecution’s theories and challenge the credibility of defense witnesses.
Discrediting Defense Witnesses: Cross-examining defense witnesses aggressively to create doubt about their credibility or the veracity of their testimony.
Character Assassination: Attempting to portray defendants in an unfavorable light by presenting evidence of past behavior or unrelated incidents.
Framing the Narrative: Framing the case in a way that highlights the prosecution’s version of events while downplaying alternative explanations.
Using Law Enforcement Support: Leveraging the cooperation of law enforcement agencies to strengthen the prosecution’s case and bolster credibility.
Obstruction Allegations: Alleging that defendants attempted to obstruct justice by interfering with investigations or tampering with evidence.
Hypothetical Scenarios: Presenting hypothetical scenarios to the jury that align with the prosecution’s narrative, even if they haven’t been proven.
Using Co-Defendant Statements: Presenting statements made by co-defendants that implicate the defendant, even if they may not be admissible as evidence against the defendant.
Playing on Sympathy: Presenting victims emotional testimony to invoke sympathy from the jury and potentially sway their decision.
Utilizing Aggressive Cross-Examination: Cross-examining defense witnesses aggressively to challenge their credibility or to elicit inconsistencies.
Presenting Circumstantial Evidence: Using indirect or circumstantial evidence to build a case when direct evidence might be lacking.
Portraying Inconsistencies: Pointing out inconsistencies or changes in the defendant’s statements to create doubt about their truthfulness.
Using Criminal Record: Introducing the defendant’s prior criminal record to suggest a pattern of behavior consistent with the current charges.
Rapid Fire Questioning: Asking rapid-fire questions during cross-examination to disorient and potentially provoke emotional responses from witnesses.
Emphasizing Expert Credentials: Highlighting the credentials and expertise of expert witnesses to give their testimony greater weight.
Appealing to Community Standards: Framing the case in a way that aligns with community values and expectations to win the jury’s approval.
Voluminous Documentation: Presenting large amounts of documentary evidence to overwhelm the defense and jurors with the sheer volume of information.
Using Demonstrative Evidence: Utilizing visual aids, diagrams, and simulations to help jurors visualize and understand complex or technical aspects of the case.
Utilizing Witness Testimony: Presenting witnesses who can speak to the defendant’s character, behavior, or interactions that support the prosecution’s narrative.
Discrediting Defense Strategy: Anticipating the defense’s strategy and undermining it through pre-emptive arguments or evidence.
Focusing on the Intent: Emphasizing the defendant’s alleged intent or state of mind to demonstrate culpability for the charges.
Invoking Legal Precedents: Citing legal precedents to support the prosecution’s interpretation of laws or regulations.
Appealing to Fear of the Unknown: Suggesting that acquitting the defendant could lead to negative consequences, even if they are speculative.
Portraying Complex Concepts: Simplifying complex legal or technical concepts to make them more accessible and relatable to the jury.
Using Emotional Closures: Building the prosecution’s narrative towards an emotionally charged conclusion to leave a lasting impact on jurors.
Maximizing Use of Testimony: Ensuring that each piece of testimony or evidence presented supports the prosecution’s theory and narrative.
Disinformation Campaigns: Spreading false or misleading information through social media, websites, or traditional media to shape public perception and manipulate opinions.
Astroturfing: Creating fake grassroots movements or organizations to give the appearance of widespread public support for a certain cause or viewpoint.
Polarization Promotion: Amplifying divisive issues or exploiting existing divisions to create hostility and conflict among different groups in society.
Smear Campaigns: Launching coordinated efforts to tarnish the reputation of opponents through personal attacks, character assassination, or spreading damaging rumors.
Political Manipulation of Media: Exerting influence over media outlets to ensure favorable coverage or suppress critical reporting.
Strategic Leaks: Releasing sensitive or confidential information to damage the credibility of opponents or divert attention from other issues.
Infiltration of Opposition Groups: Planting operatives within opposition movements to gather intelligence, sow discord, or influence decision-making.
Vote Suppression: Implementing tactics such as restrictive voter ID laws, gerrymandering, or disinformation to discourage or prevent certain groups from voting.
Promotion of Populist Movements: Supporting populist leaders or movements that align with the power source’s interests to gain influence and control.
Diversionary Tactics: Creating distractions or crises to shift public attention away from unfavorable issues or to create a sense of urgency.
Co-opting Political Parties: Influencing or manipulating political parties from within to advance the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Radicalization: Amplifying extreme ideologies to create social unrest and chaos, which can undermine stability and opposition movements.
Selective Enforcement of Laws: Using legal mechanisms to target political opponents while turning a blind eye to allies who engage in similar behavior.
Economic Manipulation: Leveraging economic power to create dependency among certain groups or countries, enabling political leverage.
Foreign Interference: Exploiting geopolitical dynamics to promote or destabilize governments, aligning with the power source’s interests.
Strategic Alliances: Forming alliances with countries, organizations, or groups that support the power source’s objectives, bolstering its influence on the global stage.
Promotion of Propaganda: Using state-controlled media or external outlets to disseminate narratives that favor the power source’s agenda.
Fear-Mongering: Utilizing fear-based messaging to create a sense of insecurity and rally public support for certain policies or actions.
Selective Transparency: Presenting a facade of transparency by releasing some information while keeping critical details hidden.
Election Interference: Manipulating election processes through cyberattacks, disinformation, or funding to influence outcomes.
Proxy Conflicts: Instigating or supporting conflicts in other regions to divert attention from domestic issues or to advance geopolitical interests.
Censorship and Suppression: Restricting freedom of speech, press, or online expression to control the flow of information and prevent opposition voices from gaining traction.
Surveillance State: Establishing extensive surveillance systems to monitor citizens’ activities, communication, and behavior, thereby stifling dissent.
Promotion of Conspiracy Theories: Amplifying and promoting conspiracy theories to create confusion, distrust in institutions, and undermine public discourse.
Selective Humanitarian Interventions: Advocating for or against interventions in other countries based on political interests rather than genuine concern for human rights.
Strategic Foreign Aid: Providing financial or humanitarian aid to countries or groups that align with the power source’s objectives, thereby gaining influence.
Culture and Identity Manipulation: Exploiting cultural or identity issues to create division and distract from critical political matters.
Control of Key Resources: Securing control over vital resources, such as energy, water, or food, to exert political leverage over other nations.
Selective Diplomacy: Engaging in diplomatic negotiations or agreements that favor the power source’s objectives while disregarding broader global interests.
Public Relations Stunts: Orchestrating events, gestures, or symbolic actions for media coverage to project an image of goodwill or responsiveness.
Social Engineering: Manipulating societal norms, values, and narratives to shape public opinion and maintain control over political discourse.
Undermining International Agreements: Disregarding or withdrawing from international agreements, treaties, or organizations that don’t align with the power source’s agenda.
Cyber Espionage: Using cyber operations to gather intelligence on political opponents, foreign governments, or influential individuals.
Public Opinion Manipulation: Commissioning or supporting opinion polls, surveys, or studies that yield results favorable to the power source’s narrative.
Promotion of Scapegoats: Blaming certain groups, individuals, or external entities for societal issues or failures to divert responsibility.
Legal Maneuvering: Exploiting legal processes, loopholes, or ambiguities to advance political objectives, often at the expense of democratic principles.
Strategic Economic Partnerships: Forging economic partnerships or trade agreements to strengthen political ties and exert influence over partner countries.
Selective Immigration Policies: Using immigration policies to control demographic shifts, exploit labor, or influence the composition of certain regions.
Promotion of Nationalism: Utilizing nationalist rhetoric and symbols to foster loyalty, distract from internal issues, and rally support for the power source.
Politicizing Bureaucracy: Appointing individuals loyal to the power source to key positions within agencies to ensure alignment with the agenda.
Selective Enforcement: Directing agencies to selectively enforce regulations, laws, or policies to benefit the power source’s objectives or allies.
Budget Manipulation: Allocating or redirecting funds to projects or initiatives that align with the power source’s interests, potentially at the expense of critical
programs.
Obstruction of Transparency: Limiting access to information, data, or reports that could be unfavorable to the power source or its agenda.
Personnel Purges: Removing or reassigning agency personnel who are perceived as not aligned with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Rulemaking: Shaping the regulatory rulemaking process to favor industries or interests aligned with the power source.
Promotion of Partisan Narratives: Releasing official statements, reports, or statements that promote partisan narratives or misinformation.
Selective Data Release: Releasing data or information in a way that supports the power source’s narrative, while withholding data that might counter it.
Surveillance and Intimidation: Using agency resources to monitor and intimidate individuals or organizations critical of the power source’s agenda.
Erosion of Civil Liberties: Proposing or implementing policies that infringe on civil liberties under the guise of security or safety.
Targeting Dissenting Voices: Labeling dissenting voices as security threats or subversive elements, potentially leading to investigations or surveillance.
Influence Over Inspections: Directing inspections, audits, or investigations to focus on certain targets that align with the power source’s interests.
Strategic Staffing Changes: Appointing individuals loyal to the power source in mid-level positions to ensure alignment with the agenda.
Suppressing Whistleblowers: Intimidating or retaliating against employees who expose wrongdoing or provide information contrary to the power source’s narrative.
Influence Over International Agreements: Using agency involvement to shape or undermine international agreements, treaties, or cooperation efforts.
Promotion of Propaganda: Collaborating with agencies to produce propaganda or misleading information that supports the power source’s narrative.
Undermining Science and Research: Discrediting or sidelining scientific research that contradicts the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Advisory Panels: Shaping the composition and conclusions of advisory panels to align with the power source’s objectives.
Selective Funding Allocation: Allocating government funding or grants to projects or research that promote the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Regulation Repeals: Directing agencies to roll back regulations that hinder the power source’s interests or allies.
Strategic International Aid: Providing foreign aid to countries or groups that support the power source’s geopolitical objectives.
Economic Warfare: Using agency actions to apply economic pressure on other countries, entities, or industries to achieve political goals.
Influence Over Public Education: Shaping curriculum, textbooks, or educational materials to promote narratives aligned with the power source.
Censorship of Scientific Findings: Suppressing or altering scientific findings that conflict with the power source’s ideology or agenda.
Influence Over Disaster Response: Directing disaster response efforts to prioritize certain areas or communities based on political considerations.
Targeted Investigations: Initiating investigations or audits against political opponents or entities that challenge the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Intellectual Property Protection: Tailoring intellectual property policies to benefit industries or entities that support the power source.
Promotion of Regulatory Capture: Allowing industries to heavily influence regulatory decision-making to align with their interests.
Influence Over Government Contracts: Steering government contracts or contracts for public projects toward entities aligned with the power source.
Strategic Use of International Trade: Utilizing trade policies and negotiations to exert pressure on other countries or achieve geopolitical objectives.
Influence Over International Organizations: Shaping the direction and decisions of international organizations to align with the power source’s goals.
Selective FOlA Requests: Using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests strategically to access information that supports the power source’s narrative while limiting access to potentially damaging information.
Influence Over Emergency Declarations: Leveraging emergency declarations to centralize power and bypass checks and balances in the name of crisis response.
Strategic Funding Reductions: Cutting or reallocating funding for agencies, programs, or initiatives that don’t align with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Regulatory Exemptions: Granting exemptions or waivers from regulations to favored entities, industries, or allies.
Promotion of Partisan Appointments: Appointing individuals to advisory boards, commissions, or panels based on political loyalty rather than expertise.
Influence Over Legislative Agenda: Working closely with legislative bodies to push for bills or legislation that advance the power source’s objectives.
Strategic Lobbying: Utilizing agency resources and connections to lobby lawmakers and influence policy decisions.
Influence Over international Development: Shaping international development programs to further geopolitical interests or promote specific ideologies.
Influence Over State and Local Government Relations: Coordinating with state and local governments to align policies and regulations with the federal power source’s goals.
Surveillance of Political Opponents: Monitoring, collecting data on, or surveilling individuals or groups critical of the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Research Funding: Directing research funding to projects or studies that align with the power source’s narrative or objectives.
Promotion of Ideological Purity: Implementing ideological tests or loyalty oaths for employees within agencies to ensure alignment.
Influence Over Humanitarian Aid: Controlling the distribution of humanitarian aid or disaster relief to support geopolitical or strategic objectives.
Strategic International Sanctions: Applying international sanctions selectively to exert pressure on specific countries, individuals, or entities.
Influence Over Census and Demographics: Shaping the way population data is collected, reported, or analyzed to serve the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Surveillance Programs: Expanding surveillance programs under the pretext of national security, even if they infringe on civil liberties.
Influence Over International Trade Agreements: Leveraging trade negotiations to gain advantages for domestic industries or to further geopolitical objectives.
Undermining Independent Agencies: Undermining or weakening the influence of independent agencies that are not directly under the control of the power source.
Strategic Diplomatic Efforts: Using diplomatic channels and negotiations to advance political objectives, even if they are unrelated to traditional diplomacy.
Strategic Deployment: Shifting military forces to strategic locations to exert pressure or deter actions by other countries or entities.
Disinformation Warfare: Spreading false or misleading information through cyber operations, media manipulation, or other means to confuse and disrupt
adversaries.
Asymmetric Warfare: Utilizing unconventional tactics, such as guerrilla warfare or cyberattacks, to exploit weaknesses in opponents* defenses.
Influence Over Military Leadership: Appointing loyal commanders and officers to key positions to ensure alignment with the power source’s agenda.
Psychological Operations (PSYOPS): Using propaganda, social media manipulation, and other tactics to influence the perceptions and behavior of target populations.
Covert Operations: Conducting secret missions, espionage, or sabotage to achieve military or political objectives without overtly exposing the power source’s involvement.
Strategic Weapon Development: Prioritizing the development and deployment of specific weapons systems to enhance military capabilities.
Proxy Warfare: Supporting or using proxy forces, militias, or rebel groups to achieve military or geopolitical goals without direct involvement.
Strategic Alliances: Forming military alliances or partnerships to bolster defense capabilities and exert influence on regional or global affairs.
Information Suppression: Suppressing or controlling the release of sensitive military information to maintain a strategic advantage.
Strategic Withdrawal or Retreat: Temporarily withdrawing forces from a conflict zone to regroup, reorganize, or negotiate from a position of strength.
Blockades and Embargoes: Imposing naval blockades or trade embargoes to exert economic pressure on adversaries or target states.
Strategic Use of Military Exercises: Conducting military exercises near disputed territories or sensitive regions to signal strength or test opponents’ reactions.
Denial of Territory or Resources: Preventing adversaries from accessing specific territories, resources, or infrastructure through military actions.
Space and Cyber Operations: Leveraging capabilities in space and cyberspace to disrupt adversaries’ communication, surveillance, or critical infrastructure.
Rapid Deployment Forces: Establishing highly mobile forces capable of rapid response to emerging threats or opportunities.
Economic Warfare: Using military actions to support economic objectives, such as securing access to resources or protecting trade routes.
Strategic Use of Drones: Deploying unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance, surveillance, and targeted strikes.
Counterinsurgency Strategies: Employing tactics to combat insurgency and win over local populations through development projects and humanitarian aid.
Strategic Naval Presence: Maintaining a strong naval presence in key maritime regions to protect shipping lanes and assert influence.
Information Warfare: Launching cyberattacks to disrupt adversaries” communication networks, critical infrastructure, or military systems.
Decapitation Strikes: Targeting key leadership figures or command centers of adversaries to disrupt their decision-making processes.
Use of Non-Lethal Weapons: Deploying non-lethal weapons or technologies to incapacitate or deter opponents without causing significant harm.
Strategic Maneuvering: Employing rapid and unexpected military movements to outflank, encircle, or surprise opponents.
Escalation Control: Employing measured force to signal resolve without triggering a larger conflict or military escalation.
Strategic Bombardment: Conducting precision airstrikes against military installations, infrastructure, or economic targets to weaken adversaries.
Psychological Warfare on Civilians: Employing psychological tactics to induce fear, panic, or demoralization among civilian populations.
Targeting Communication Networks: Disrupting opponents’ communication and information systems to hinder their ability to coordinate.
Strategic Deception: Using misinformation, decoys, and false signals to mislead opponents about intentions and military movements.
Electronic Warfare: Jamming, disrupting, or intercepting opponents’ electronic communication and sensor systems.
Scorched Earth Tactics: Destroying infrastructure, resources, or assets to deny them to adversaries and impede their advancement.
Combined Arms Operations: Employing a mix of ground, air, and naval forces to exploit opponents’ weaknesses across different domains.
Defensive Fortifications: Constructing defensive structures, such as bunkers or fortifications, to protect critical positions or infrastructure.
Infiltration and Sabotage: Sending special forces or covert operatives to infiltrate and sabotage opponents’ facilities or operations.
Strategic Siege: Surrounding and isolating opponents to cut off their supply lines
and force surrender or negotiation.
Interdiction of Supply Routes: Disrupting or cutting off opponents’ supply routes
to weaken their logistical capabilities.
Air Superiority Operations: Establishing control of airspace to deny opponents
the ability to launch airstrikes or reconnaissance.
Naval Blockade: Imposing a naval blockade to restrict the movement of ships and cargo in and out of a region.
Precision Targeting: Using advanced targeting technologies to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Unconventional Warfare: Employing unconventional tactics, such as guerrilla warfare or insurgency, to weaken adversaries from within.
Financial Sanctions: Imposing targeted financial sanctions on countries, individuals, or entities that oppose the power source’s agenda.
Currency Manipulation: Manipulating currency exchange rates to benefit the power source’s economy or to undermine opponents’ economies.
Strategic Investment: Directing investments toward projects or industries that align with the power source’s interests.
Covert Financial Support: Providing covert financial support to groups or organizations that further the power source’s objectives.
Financial Blacklisting: Blacklisting individuals, companies, or countries from accessing international financial systems, thereby restricting their economic activities.
Economic Blockades: Leveraging control over international banks to freeze assets
or block transactions of target countries or entities.
Information Warfare on Markets: Spreading false information or rumors to manipulate financial markets and achieve desired economic outcomes.
Debt Diplomacy: Extending loans or financial assistance to other countries in exchange for political concessions or alignment with the power source’s interests.
Influence Over Credit Ratings: Using influence to manipulate credit rating agencies’ assessments of countries, affecting their borrowing costs.
Strategic International Aid: Leveraging control over international financial institutions to provide aid to countries or groups aligned with the power source.
Market Manipulation: Manipulating stock markets, commodities markets, or currency markets to create economic instability in target countries.
Control Over Investment Flows: Directing international investment flows to benefit certain industries or sectors that align with the power source’s agenda.
Financial Support for Media: Providing financial support to media outlets that promote narratives favorable to the power source.
Control Over Trade Finance: Exerting control over trade finance mechanisms to influence trade patterns and the flow of goods.
Strategic Divestment: Using control over financial institutions to divest from sectors or companies that oppose the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Multilateral Agreements: Shaping the terms and conditions of international economic agreements to align with the power source’s objectives.
Control Over SWIFT System: Leveraging control over the Society for Worldwide
Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT system to disrupt financial
transactions of adversaries.
Economic Warfare: Deploying financial tactics to weaken opponents’ economies
and undermine their geopolitical influence.
Financial Espionage: Gathering intelligence on opponents economic activities, financial vulnerabilities, and strategies.
Manipulation of International Debt: Using control over international financial
institutions to manipulate the terms of debt agreements with target countries.
Control Over Remittances: Exerting control over the flow of remittances to influence economic conditions or political developments in certain regions.
Strategic Development Loans: Providing loans for development projects that align with the power source’s interests, fostering dependency and influence.
Influence Over Central Banks: Exerting influence over the policies and decisions of central banks in target countries to align with the power source’s agenda.
Financial Support for Proxies: Providing financial resources to proxy groups or entities to advance the power source’s geopolitical goals.
Strategic Reserve Management: Manipulating the management of international currency reserves to influence exchange rates and economic conditions.
Influence Over Sovereign Wealth Funds: Exerting influence over sovereign wealth funds of other countries to direct investments and support specific industries or projects.
Promotion of Financial Regulations: Shaping international financial regulations and standards to benefit industries or entities aligned with the power source.
Economic Leverage in Negotiations: Using economic threats or promises to gain concessions in diplomatic negotiations or international agreements.
Financial Incentives for Alignment: Offering financial incentives or rewards to countries or entities that align with the power source’s objectives.
Control Over International Lending: Exerting control over international lending institutions to condition loans on policy changes or alignment with the power
source’s interests.
Strategic Use of Trade Tariffs: Imposing trade tariffs or restrictions on specific goods to influence the economic behavior of target countries.
Financial Coercion: Using economic pressures to force target countries to comply with the power source’s demands or policies.
Control Over Critical Commodities: Exerting control over the supply and pricing of critical commodities to influence global markets and geopolitical dynamics.
Strategic Diversion of Capital: Diverting capital flows away from target countries to weaken their economies and influence their policies.
Financial Support for Regime Change: Providing financial support to opposition groups or individuals to facilitate regime change in target countries.
Influence Over Investment Banking: Directing investment banking activities to support projects and ventures that align with the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Economic Dependence: Creating economic dependencies in target countries through financial assistance, loans, or investments.
Control Over International Debt Negotiations: Using influence to shape the terms of international debt negotiations to the advantage of the power source.
Financial Support for Cultural Exchange: Providing financial support for cultural and educational programs that promote narratives favorable to the power source.
Strategic Financial Espionage: Gathering intelligence on financial transactions, economic strategies, and vulnerabilities of adversaries.
Selective Funding: Directing financial support only to charities that align with the power source’s agenda or withholding funding from those that oppose it.
Promotion of Narratives: Encouraging charities to promote narratives or causes that support the power source’s objectives.
Diversion of Funds: Diverting charitable donations to projects or initiatives that benefit the power source’s interests.
Control Over Aid Distribution: Exerting control over the distribution of humanitarian aid to strategically influence regions or populations.
Propaganda Through Charity: Using charitable efforts as a front to spread propaganda or misinformation that aligns with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Humanitarian Missions: Shaping the focus and objectives of humanitarian missions to support the power source’s geopolitical goals.
Charitable Interventions: Using charities to intervene in conflicts or crises to further the power source’s interests.
Targeted Support: Providing financial or logistical support to specific groups, communities, or regions to align with the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Dependency: Creating dependency among communities or regions through charitable assistance to ensure long-term influence.
Control Over Medical Aid: Directing medical aid efforts to focus on certain health issues or regions that align with the power source’s agenda.
Selective Medical Support: Providing medical resources or expertise only to areas or populations that support the power source’s objectives.
Suppression of Medical Information: Withholding or manipulating medical information or research findings that conflict with the power source’s narrative.
Control Over Medical Personnel: Appointing medical personnel or administrators who are aligned with the power source’s interests.
Promotion of Ideological Medical Practices: Encouraging medical providers to promote certain medical practices or treatments that align with the power source’s ideology.
Diversion of Medical Supplies: Diverting medical supplies or equipment to certain regions or groups that support the power source’s goals.
Manipulation of Medical Research: Shaping medical research efforts to support the power source’s agenda or interests.
Control Over Medical Outreach: Exerting control over medical outreach efforts, such as vaccination campaigns, to further the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Medical NGOs: Exerting influence over medical non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to align with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Medical Diplomacy: Using medical aid and expertise as a tool for diplomatic influence and to advance geopolitical interests.
Targeted Health Interventions: Providing specific health interventions or treatments to certain groups or populations to gain their support.
Funding for Proxies: Providing financial support to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or charities that indirectly advance the power source’s interests.
Charitable Diplomacy: Leveraging charitable efforts to build relationships and alliances with other countries or entities.
Control Over Disaster Relief: Exerting control over the allocation of disaster relief funds and resources to strategically influence affected regions.
Promotion of Cultural Influence: Using charities to promote cultural activities or events that align with the power source’s objectives.
Creation of Medical Dependency: Providing medical resources or assistance in a way that creates long-term dependence on the power source.
Selective Medical Research Funding: Directing funding only to medical research projects that align with the power source’s interests.
Medical Espionage: Gathering medical intelligence on adversaries’ health capabilities, vulnerabilities, or strategies.
Influence Over Medical Licensing: Exerting control over the licensing and accreditation of medical professionals to ensure alignment with the power source’s agenda.
Medical Humanitarian Missions: Deploying medical teams on humanitarian missions to support regions or communities that align with the power source’s goals.
Control Over Medical Supply Chains: Exerting control over the production and distribution of medical supplies to influence availability and accessibility.
Promotion of Biomedical Ethics: Shaping discussions and policies related to biomedical ethics to align with the power source’s ideological positions.
Targeted Health Awareness Campaigns: Launching health awareness campaigns that promote specific health issues or practices aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Medical Training: Directing medical training programs and curriculum to prioritize certain medical practices or ideologies.
Medical Intelligence Gathering: Collecting medical data and information that could be used strategically for political or geopolitical purposes.
Censorship of Charitable Activities: Suppressing or limiting charitable activities that contradict the power source’s narrative or interests.
Promotion of Cultural Hegemony: Using charitable initiatives to promote the power source’s culture, values, or ideology in target regions.
Selective Disaster Response: Providing aid and support only to regions or communities that align with the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Philanthropic Initiatives: Shaping philanthropic initiatives to prioritize projects or causes that support the power source’s goals.
Charitable Espionage: Gathering intelligence on vulnerable populations, social dynamics, or economic conditions through charitable activities.
Influence Over Clinical Trials: Directing the design and implementation of clinical trials to align with the power source’s medical or pharmaceutical interests.
Control Over Medical Ethics Boards: Exerting influence over medical ethics boards or review committees to shape decisions that align with the power source’s goals.
Medical Coercion: Using medical resources or assistance as leverage to pressure target individuals, communities, or organizations to align with the power source’s interests.
Promotion of Medical Narratives: Encouraging medical professionals to endorse or promote narratives that support the power source’s agenda.
Strategic Use of Medical Aid: Deploying medical aid or assistance to strategically influence regions or populations that align with the power source’s goals.
Control Over Medical Technology Sharing: Exerting control over the sharing and dissemination of medical technology and innovations to serve the power source’s interests.
Influence Over Medical Research Funding Allocation: Shaping the allocation of research funding to prioritize areas of medical research that align with the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Medical Conferences: Exerting control over medical conferences and events to ensure that discussions align with the power source’s narrative.
Promotion of Alternative Medicine Narratives: Encouraging medical providers to promote alternative medical practices that align with the power source’s ideology.
Data Collection and Surveillance: Encouraging tech companies to collect and share user data that aligns with the power source’s objectives, potentially infringing on user privacy.
Algorithm Manipulation: Influencing algorithms and search rankings to promote content that supports the power source’s narrative and suppresses opposing viewpoints.
Content Moderation Bias: Pressuring tech companies to moderate content selectively, allowing certain narratives while suppressing others that contradict the power source’s agenda
Censorship and Deplatforming: Encouraging the removal or suspension of users, accounts, or platforms that oppose the power source’s interests.
Promotion of Propaganda: Collaborating with tech companies to disseminate propaganda or misleading information that supports the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Al Development: Shaping the development of artificial intelligence technologies to prioritize applications that align with the power source’s objectives.
Tech Export Restrictions: Using influence to restrict the export of certain technologies to target countries or entities that oppose the power source’s agenda.
Backdoor Access: Coercing tech companies to provide backdoor access to encrypted communication platforms for surveillance purposes.
Control Over Tech Standards: Exerting influence over the establishment of tech standards to favor technologies or practices that support the power source’s goals.
Tech Investment Direction: Directing tech investments toward projects or startups that align with the power source’s interests.
Influence Over Social Media Platforms: Shaping the policies, features, and user experiences of social media platforms to align with the power source’s narrative.
Influence Over Tech Lobbying: Coordinating with tech companies to lobby for policies or regulations that support the power source’s objectives.
Tech Supply Chain Manipulation: Using influence to manipulate the global tech supply chain to benefit industries or entities aligned with the power source.
Influence Over Tech Innovation: Shaping tech research and innovation priorities to favor technologies that advance the power source’s geopolitical interests.
Promotion of Digital Nationalism: Encouraging tech companies to promote digital nationalism or patriotism in line with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Tech Education: Shaping tech education programs and curriculum
to align with the power source’s ideological positions.
Tech Espionage: Gathering intelligence on tech developments, vulnerabilities, and strategies through covert means.
Control Over Tech Patents: Exerting control over the granting of tech patents to favor innovations that align with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Tech Diplomacy: Using tech initiatives and collaborations as a means of diplomatic outreach to promote international relationships.
Influence Over Tech Trade Agreements: Shaping tech-related clauses in trade agreements to benefit industries or entities that support the power source.
Coercion and Threats: Using threats of harm, intimidation, or blackmail to compel witnesses or informants to provide testimony or information that supports the power source’s narrative.
Bribery: Offering financial incentives, favors, or rewards in exchange for favorable testimony or information.
Selective Disclosure: Sharing sensitive or damaging information about witnesses or informants to exert control or manipulation.
Promotion of Personal Interests: Exploiting the personal interests, desires, or vulnerabilities of witnesses or informants to gain their cooperation.
Manipulation of Legal Proceedings: Influencing legal proceedings to protect witnesses or informants aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Falsified Evidence: Planting or manufacturing evidence to support the claims made by witnesses or informants.
Influence Over Legal Representation: Directing legal representation for witnesses or informants to ensure their cooperation.
Isolation and Separation: Isolating witnesses or informants from external influences to control their access to information and perspectives.
False Narratives: Coercing witnesses or informants to provide false narratives that support the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Media Coverage: Using influence to shape media coverage of witness testimonies or informant revelations.
Protection and Security: Offering witness protection or security in exchange for their cooperation, while controlling their actions and communications.
Exploitation of Loyalties: Leveraging personal loyalties or relationships to manipulate witnesses or informants into cooperation.
Emotional Manipulation: Appealing to witnesses’ emotions or personal connections to garner their support.
Intimidation Campaigns: Launching intimidation campaigns against witnesses or informants who resist the power source’s influence.
Control Over Communication: Monitoring and controlling witnesses’ or informants’ communication channels to ensure compliance.
Influence Over Legal Decisions: Exerting influence over legal decisions or verdicts to favor witnesses or informants who align with the power source’s agenda.
Framing Dissenters: Framing dissenting witnesses or informants with false accusations to discredit their testimonies.
Influence Over Protection Programs: Shaping witness protection programs to ensure that protected individuals align with the power source’s goals.
Manufacturing Testimonies: Crafting testimonies through scripting or rehearsing to ensure they align with the power source’s narrative.
Influence Over Law Enforcement: Exerting influence over law enforcement agencies to prioritize cases involving witnesses or informants who support the power source’s interests.
Control Over Manufacturing: Exerting control over the production and distribution of specific birth control methods that align with the power source’s
objectives.
Supply Chain Manipulation: Manipulating the global supply chain for birth control products to favor certain suppliers or manufacturers.
Selective Export Restrictions: Imposing export restrictions on birth control products to limit their availability in regions that oppose the power source’s interests.
Strategic Funding: Providing funding or incentives to companies that produce birth control methods that align with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Cultural Norms: Using birth control supply to promote cultural norms or practices that support the power source’s demographic objectives.
Influence Over Research and Development: Shaping research and development efforts in the field of birth control to focus on methods that align with the power
source’s agenda.
Control Over Marketing: Exerting influence over the marketing and promotion of specific birth control methods that support the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Regulatory Approval: Shaping the regulatory approval process for new birth control methods to expedite methods aligned with the power source’s interests.
Promotion of Reproductive Technologies: Advocating for the adoption of reproductive technologies that align with the power source’s demographic goals.
Selective Resource Allocation: Directing resources toward the production and distribution of birth control methods that are in line with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Consumer Demand:
Creation of Trends: Shaping consumer trends and preferences to align with products or services that support the power source’s interests.
Selective Marketing: Directing marketing efforts towards products or industries that are aligned with the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Popular Culture: Shaping popular culture, entertainment, and media content to promote products or ideologies that support the power source’s agenda.
Cultural Narratives: Leveraging cultural narratives to drive consumer demand for specific products or commodities that align with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Social Media Influencers: Coordinating with social media influencers to promote products or services that support the power source’s narrative.
Selective Endorsements: Securing endorsements from celebrities or influencers for products or services that align with the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Lifestyle Ideals: Encouraging consumer lifestyles that prioritize products or experiences in line with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Product Placements: Shaping product placements in movies, TV shows, and other media to support the power source’s objectives.
Creation of Artificial Scarcity: Manipulating supply and demand dynamics to create artificial scarcity and increase consumer desire for specific commodities.
Promotion of Brand Identity: Shaping brand identities and values to align with the power source’s narrative and attract consumers who share similar values.
Influence Over Advertising:
Narrative Shaping: Shaping advertising narratives to promote products or services that support the power source’s objectives.
Control Over Media Channels: Exerting influence over media channels to ensure that advertising content is consistent with the power source’s agenda.
Discrediting Competing Narratives: Launching advertising campaigns that discredit or undermine products or services that oppose the power source’s interests.
Selective Ad Placement: Directing advertising resources towards platforms or outlets that align with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Cultural Hegemony: Using advertising to promote cultural values, symbols, and ideals that align with the power source’s narrative.
Influence Over Influencer Marketing: Coordinating with influencers to deliver advertising content that supports the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Product Endorsements: Exerting control over product endorsements and testimonials to ensure alignment with the power source’s narrative.
Emotional Manipulation: Using emotional appeals in advertising to elicit specific consumer behaviors that support the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Sponsorships: Shaping sponsorship agreements to align with products or events that support the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Socially Responsible Brands: Encouraging the adoption of brands that align with the power source’s social or environmental goals.
Influence Over Commodities:
Supply Chain Manipulation: Manipulating global supply chains to favor commodities that support the power source’s interests.
Selective Export Control: Imposing export controls on specific commodities to
limit their availability in regions that oppose the power source’s agenda.
Strategic Stockpiling: Stockpiling or controlling the distribution of certain commodities to influence their availability and prices.
Control Over Distribution Networks: Exerting control over distribution networks to prioritize commodities that align with the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Sustainable Commodities: Encouraging the adoption of commodities that align with the power source’s environmental or sustainability goals.
Influence Over Commodity Pricing: Shaping commodity pricing through market manipulation or supply chain control to favor products aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Ethical Sourcing: Advocating for the use of commodities sourced ethically and in line with the power source’s values.
Control Over Resource Extraction: Exerting control over the extraction and production of specific commodities to benefit industries aligned with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Local Economies: Encouraging the consumption of commodities produced locally to support local economies aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Trade Agreements: Shaping trade agreements or policies related to commodities to benefit industries or entities aligned with the power source.
Influence Over Food Production:
Selective Crop Subsidies: Directing agricultural subsidies towards crops that align with the power source’s interests or objectives.
Control Over Seed Distribution: Exerting control over the distribution of seeds for specific crops that support the power source’s goals.
Genetic Modification: Influencing the genetic modification of crops to produce traits that align with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Farming Practices: Shaping farming practices to prioritize methods that support the power source’s environmental or economic goals.
Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture: Encouraging the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices that align with the power source’s environmental objectives.
Control Over Food Production Facilities: Exerting control over food production facilities to prioritize products that support the power source’s agenda.
Selective Regulation: Shaping food safety and quality regulations to favor products or practices that align with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Agrochemical Use: Shaping the use of agrochemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers, to align with the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Ethical Farming: Advocating for ethical farming practices and animal welfare standards that align with the power source’s values.
Selective Export Restrictions: Imposing export restrictions on certain food products to limit their availability in regions that oppose the power source’s agenda.
Strategic Stockpiling: Controlling the stockpiling and distribution of certain food products to influence their availability and prices.
Control Over Distribution Networks: Exerting control over distribution networks to prioritize the availability of food products aligned with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Health-Conscious Foods: Encouraging the consumption of foods that align with the power source’s health or wellness objectives.
Influence Over Food Packaging: Shaping food packaging and labeling to promote products that support the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Dietary Guidelines: Exerting influence over dietary guidelines and recommendations to align with the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Local Food Systems: Encouraging the consumption of locally produced foods to support local economies aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Food Imports: Shaping import policies and regulations related to food products to benefit industries or entities aligned with the power source.
Influence Over Consumer Behavior:
Promotion of Food Narratives: Shaping narratives around certain foods to
promote their consumption based on alignment with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Nutrition Information: Exerting control over nutritional information and education materials to favor foods that support the power source’s objectives.
Selective Advertisement: Directing advertising efforts towards food products that align with the power source’s narrative.
Promotion of Cultural Eating Habits: Encouraging the adoption of cultural eating habits that align with the power source’s cultural or ideological objectives.
Influence Over Dietary Trends: Shaping dietary trends and fads to prioritize foods that support the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Restaurant Menus: Exerting control over restaurant menus to promote dishes that align with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Ethical Consumption: Advocating for ethical and sustainable food consumption practices that align with the power source’s values.
Influence Over Nutritional Education: Shaping nutritional education programs and materials to support foods that align with the power source’s interests.
Control Over Food Industry Lobbying: Exerting influence over food industry lobbying efforts to prioritize policies or regulations that support the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Food Alliances: Encouraging collaborations and alliances among food producers and companies that align with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Curriculum and Content:
Narrative Shaping: Shaping educational content and curriculum to promote narratives that align with the power source’s ideology or objectives.
Control Over Textbooks: Exerting control over textbook content to ensure alignment with the power source’s agenda.
Selective Historical Interpretation: Influencing the way history is taught to emphasize certain events or perspectives that support the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Standardized Testing: Shaping the content and focus of standardized tests to reflect the power source’s educational priorities.
Promotion of Cultural Values: Incorporating cultural values and ideals into educational content that align with the power source’s narrative.
Control Over Teacher Training: Exerting influence over teacher training programs to ensure educators align with the power source’s educational objectives.
Selective Inclusion of Topics: Shaping the inclusion or exclusion of certain topics in the curriculum to align with the power source’s interests.
Promotion of Scientific Narratives: Encouraging the teaching of scientific theories or concepts that support the power source’s ideological viewpoints.
Influence Over Civic Education: Shaping civic education programs to promote specific political values or ideologies aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Educational Institutions:
Control Over Funding: Exerting control over funding allocation to educational institutions that align with the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Leadership Appointments: Shaping leadership appointments in educational institutions to ensure alignment with the power source’s narrative.
Promotion of Research Areas: Encouraging research areas and studies that align with the power source’s priorities and interests.
Control Over Grants and Scholarships: Exerting control over the distribution of grants and scholarships to support students and researchers aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Selective Collaboration: Facilitating collaborations between educational institutions and entities that support the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Educational Diplomacy: Using educational initiatives and partnerships for diplomatic outreach to promote international relationships.
Influence Over Alumni Networks: Shaping alumni networks to support causes or initiatives that align with the power source’s goals.
Control Over Student Organizations: Exerting control over student organizations and activities to ensure they reflect the power source’s values.
Influence Over Educational Messaging:
Promotion of Propaganda: Using educational platforms to disseminate propaganda or narratives that support the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Media Literacy Education: Shaping media literacy education to promote certain media sources or viewpoints aligned with the power source’s narrative.
Control Over Online Learning Platforms: Exerting control over online learning platforms to ensure content aligns with the power source’s goals.
Promotion of Technology in Education: Encouraging the integration of technology in education to promote certain tools or platforms that support the power source’s objectives.
Influence Over Education Policy: Shaping education policies and regulations to reflect the power source’s educational priorities.
Control Over Educational Research Journals: Exerting influence over educational research journals to promote studies that support the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Digital Literacy: Encouraging digital literacy programs that align with the power source’s technological and digital objectives.
Influence Over Education Advocacy Groups: Shaping the activities and advocacy efforts of education-related organizations to support the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Spiritual Practices:
Narrative Shaping: Shaping spiritual teachings and practices to promote narratives that align with the power source’s ideology or objectives.
Control Over Spiritual Texts: Exerting control over spiritual texts and teachings to ensure alignment with the power source’s agenda.
Selective Interpretation: Influencing the interpretation of spiritual teachings to emphasize certain beliefs or perspectives that support the power source’s goals.
Influence Over Rituals: Shaping rituals and ceremonies to promote specific spiritual experiences or values aligned with the power source’s narrative.
Promotion of Ethical Values: Encouraging the incorporation of ethical values and principles into spiritual teachings that align with the power source’s agenda.
Control Over Spiritual Leaders: Exerting influence over spiritual leaders and influencers to ensure their alignment with the power source’s spiritual objectives.
Promotion of Meditation and Mindfulness: Encouraging the adoption of meditation and mindfulness practices that support the power source’s wellness goals.
Influence Over Spiritual Retreats: Shaping the content and focus of spiritual
retreats to reflect the power source’s spiritual priorities.
Promotion of Compassion and Empathy: Advocating for the emphasis of compassion and empathy in spiritual teachings that align with the power source’s values.
Influence Over Spiritual Communities:
Control Over Spiritual Organizations: Exerting control over spiritual organizations and communities to ensure they reflect the power source’s narrative.
Influence Over Religious Events: Shaping religious events and gatherings to promote themes or messages that support the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Interfaith Dialogue: Encouraging interfaith dialogue and cooperation that align with the power source’s goals.
Selective Sponsorship: Providing financial support or resources to spiritual communities that promote values aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Influence Over Pilgrimages: Shaping the organization and focus of pilgrimages or spiritual journeys to support the power source’s objectives.
Promotion of Spiritual Diplomacy: Using spiritual initiatives and collaborations as a means of diplomatic outreach to promote international relationships.
Influence Over Spiritual Education: Shaping spiritual education programs and materials to reflect values and narratives aligned with the power source’s agenda.
Promotion of Environmental Stewardship: Encouraging spiritual communities to emphasize environmental stewardship and sustainability in line with the power source’s values.
David Straight is traveling the country teaching people like you.
Learning how to defend ourselves and our families against unconstitutional actions brought against us.
David a former Intelligence Officer, Former County Sheriff Deputy, Former Presidential Task Force Agent, and has also been helping people learn about law and history for over 30 years.
The Man Who Knew Too Much is a documentary about Colin Wallace a former intelligence officer who blew the whistle on fake news and was framed for a murder. Colin Wallace was involved in psychological operations in Northern Ireland. He spread fake news, created a witchcraft scare, smeared British politicians and attempted to divide and create conflict amongst communities, organizations and individuals. He fell out with members of the intelligence community and found himself accused of murder. The film received a “Special Award for Investigation & Reporting” from the Harrogate Film Festival, UK.
In conjunction with the release of this film, Colin Wallace has announced legal action against the British Ministry of Defence. Please share this film so that everyone becomes aware of this important story.
Many are now waking up to the fact the world is not what it seems and although for years many of us have been called all sorts of names for attempting to unveil the power behind the throne. In this episode, I have taken a break from my usual remedy subject and taken a journey through the portfolios of the rich and famous who strangely enough do not like the spotlight in the subject matter contained in this episode.
At base, the markets are a con game where the rich and powerful employ a raft of confidence men to lure suckers into the latest mania. In this game, the suckers are the general public who are left holding the bag as the market bubble bursts while the smart money swoops in to buy up the leftover assets at pennies on the dollar. In this week’s edition of The Corbett Report, James Corbett pulls back the curtain on the Wall Street casino and reveals how the house always wins the rigged games.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
In December of 2020, video game retailer GameStop reported an operating loss of $63 million in the previous quarter on the back of an 11% reduction in the store base. The story—just one of dozens of such reports flooding the financial newswires—meant little to the general public and went largely unnoticed.
Two groups did show an interest in the news, however: the Wall Street vultures who see every faltering company as an easy source of money in the futures markets and a small band of retail investors who saw the potential for the floundering gaming franchise to turn things around.
Within a matter of weeks, these two groups would clash in one of the most spectacular stock market face offs in recent memory. Even the White House got drawn into the saga.
REPORTER: I was concerned about the stock market activity we’re seeing around GameStop and now with some other stocks as well, including the subsidiary or whatever—the company that was . . . Blockbuster?—and have there been any conversations with the SEC about how to proceed?
JEN PSAKI: Well, I’m also happy to repeat that we have the first female treasury secretary and a team that’s surrounding her and often questions about market we’ll send to them. But our team is of course—our economic team, including Secretary Yellen and others—are monitoring the situation.
The human drama in the story made it easily recognizable as a David vs. Goliath narrative. Here was a ragtag band of mom-and-pop—or, in this case, millennial—investors going up against the hedge fund billionaires. And, just as it seemed they may actually have an effect, the full power of the financial and political system seemed to swoop in to suppress them.
But the “revelation” that retail investors are fighting a rigged game against the Wall Street hedge fund behemoths is hardly a revelation at all. In fact, it is merely the latest example in a long series of events showing that the stock market was never meant to bring riches and fortune to the average investor.
Instead, when the story is told in its full context, there is only one obvious conclusion to be drawn:
The stock market is often portrayed in the financial media as a magical crystal ball that can not only tell us about what is happening in the economy, but predict geopolitical events, forecast elections, or even reveal to us the inner workings of the minds of men.
BECKY QUICK: Alright, so polls are one way of trying to figure out who’s going to win. Watching the markets are another. They’re pretty good at predicting elections sometimes, too.
LESLIE PICKER: Valuations on a price-to-earnings basis are below post-crisis averages leading some to believe that decent fundamentals could—emphasis on could—jumpstart the shares higher.
DOMINIC CHU: You’re telling me you don’t have a crystal ball . . .
PICKER: I don’t.
CHU: . . . And I don’t blame you.
PICKER: I don’t. But even I did I couldn’t say it here.
KRISTINA HOOPER: Well, we could very well see some gains, some pullbacks, more gains. Certainly animal spirits are alive and well, but I would argue it’s a very different spirit animal than last year. Since the start of February our spirit animal is probably the chihuahua.
But this is a lie. In reality, the markets are driven not by underlying economic fundamentals, as the public is asked to believe, but by the actions of the central banks.
This is not even a controversial point.
In 2014, the Bank for International Settlements warned that central banks were causing “elevated” asset prices.
A report from the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum that same year warned that “Central banks around the world, including in Europe, are buying increasing volumes of equities” and “The same authorities that are responsible for maintaining financial stability are often the owners of the large funds that have the potential to cause problems.”
And in 2016—in the midst of the historic bull run that has seen the Dow Jones and S&P indexes reach all-time record high after all-time record high—economist Brian Barnier published a report documenting that between the beginning of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program in 2008 and the 1st quarter of 2015, the Fed was directly responsible for 93% of equity value growth in the US.
This modern era of central bank-dominated markets, however, is only the latest version of a game that is as old as the markets themselves. At base it’s a con game where the rich and powerful employ a raft of confidence men to lure suckers into the latest market mania. In this game, the “suckers” are the general public who are left holding the bag as the market bubble bursts while the “smart money” swoops in to buy up the leftover assets at pennies on the dollar.
The game was being played as far back as 1814 when a uniformed man posing as the aide-de-camp of Lord Cathcart landed in Dover spreading the false rumour that Napoleon had been killed by a detachment of Cossacks. When the rumours reached London later that day, three men dressed up as French officers in white Bourbon cockades were parading across Blackfriars bridge proclaiming the end of the Napoleonic empire and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy. By the time the British government officially dispelled the rumour later that afternoon, an elaborate fraud had already played out in the London stock markets. The rumour had kicked off a buying frenzy and the perpetrators of what is now known as The Great Fraud of Cowley—the ones who had started the rumours and hired the actors to help spread them—had already sold 1.1 million pounds worth of government stock into the market peak.
Another bit of market manipulation centering around Napoleon’s military fortunes played out again the next year, in 1815. Nathan Rothschild of the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty used the smuggling network that he and his brothers had built to funnel gold and silver to Wellington’s army to get news of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo back to London 24 hours before the official word reached the British government. Although a fancified version of the story involving homing pigeons and Nathan’s acting abilities at the stock exchange are easily dismissed as anti-Semitic slurs by the mainstream press, even the official Rothschild Archive treatment of the incident admits that Nathan Rothschild did receive early warning of Wellington’s victory and he did profit from that foreknowledge in the stock market. Historian Niall Ferguson has written on the subject in detail in his authorized biography of the Rothschilds and even the BBC published a story in 1998 outlining how the conspiracy functioned and how the brothers communicated in secret by writing their letters in the Judendeutsch script they had learned in their childhood in the Frankfurt Jewish ghetto.
The stock market con game isn’t just an historical relic, though. Those with advance knowledge of world events continue to profit from their insider information, sometimes in the most macabre way imaginable.
ANTONIO MORA: What many Wall Street analysts believe is that the terrorists made bets that a number of stocks would see their prices fall. They did so by buying what they call ‘puts.’ If you bet right the rewards can be huge. The risks are also huge unless you know something bad is going to happen to the company you’re betting against.
DYLAN RATIGAN: This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life.
In the wake of 9/11, researchers began to uncover a money trail that proved those with advance knowledge of the attack had indeed used their insider information to profit from the events of that day.
In addition to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, the governments of Italy, Germany, Belgium and other countries began their own investigations into a series of trades betting against companies that were hurt by 9/11—like Boeing, Merrill Lynch, United Airlines, Munich Re and others—and betting on companies that profited from the attacks—including a six-fold increase in call options on the stock of defense contractor Raytheon on September 10, 2001.
In subsequent years, not one, not two, but three separate, peer-reviewed papers concluded that the unusual trading in the weeks prior to 9/11 were “consistent with insiders anticipating the 9/11 attacks.” But incredibly, the SEC investigation into this money trail was abruptly terminated and the records of that investigation were subsequently destroyed.
Why? Because, as researchers like Kevin Ryan, Michael Ruppert and others later discovered, the trail led them to the doorstep not of Al Qaeda, but well-connected American businessmen and intelligence officials.
MICHAEL C. RUPPERT: So right after the attacks of 9/11 the name Buzzy Krongard surfaced. It was instant research that revealed that Buzzy Krongard had been allegedly recruited by CIA Director George Tenet to become the Executive Director at CIA, which is the number three position, right before the attacks.
And Alex Brown was one of the many subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank, one of the primary vehicles or instruments that handled all of these criminal trades by people who obviously knew that the attacks were going to take place, where, how and involving specific airlines.
KEVIN RYAN: I came across this document that had been released: a memorandum for the record of the 9/11 Commission. It was prepared by a staff member of the 9/11 Commission. His name is Douglas Greenberg and he reviewed simply the FBI’s meetings on their communications related to this. This document identified a couple of companies that were flagged by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and one of them—this was September 21st just ten days after the attacks—one of these companies that was flagged was called Stratesec. And this is a very interesting company because it’s a security company that had contracts for the World Trade Center and Dulles Airport where one of the planes took off on 9/11, as well as United Airlines, which owned two of the other three planes. So this security company, Stratesec, was a very central player in in the events of 9/11, you could say, because they ran security for these different areas in the years leading up to 9/11.
So for them this company stopped to be flagged by the SEC was very compelling and when I looked at this document—prepared by the 9/11 Commission which wasn’t released until 2007—I noticed that the names had been redacted of the stock traders, but I could make out who they were. In particular, one of them was a director of the company Stratesec. He was also a director of a company in Oklahoma, an aviation company. He was also a director of a Washington, DC-based financial organization. With just that information you could tell very clearly that this man was Wirt Dexter Walker. He was the Chief Executive Officer of Stratesec and also a director there. His wife, Sally Walker, was also named in the flagging by the SEC. So I began looking into that.
JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: …the last thing I want to leave you with is the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill of a plane crashing into their building and you know they’re staffed by DoD and CIA…
ROBERT BAER: I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said “Cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.”
JEREMY ROTHE KUSHEL: Really?
ROBERT BAER: Yeah.
STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.
ROBERT BAER: What?
STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.
ROBERT BAER: Well, his brother worked at the White House.
Horrific as these instances of insider trading are, an even deeper layer of the story lies in the fact that these trades—unlike the high-profile show trials of Martha Stewart and other stories-of-the-week—never result in prosecutions. The protection afforded the 9/11 inside traders speaks to an even deeper layer of the problem: the use of the markets to line the pockets of insiders and their political cronies is not a bug in the system, but a feature. In fact, the entire system has been designed to be manipulable, ensuring that the little guys never have a chance against the billionaire bankers and hedge funds.
A clue to this story goes back to the most well-known event in stock market history: the Great Crash of 1929. Even there, in the midst of one of the most devastating financial collapses in human history, there was money to be made by insiders who knew what was coming.
One such insider was Albert Henry Wiggin, Chairman of the Chase National Bank and the man who had been instrumental in attracting the Rockefeller family to begin their century-long involvement in Chase. When the market began plummeting on Black Thursday 1929, Wiggin and his fellow banking associates were lauded as heroes for their actions to restore order to the market, which culminated in New York Stock Exchange Vice President Richard Whitney stepping out on the floor of the Exchange and making a great commotion by yelling out orders for key stocks at above-market prices.
Wiggin knew he was covered no matter what happened. Shortly before the Crash, he shorted shares in his own bank by borrowing shares from various brokers at prices he anticipated would fall, at which time he would buy the shares in the market at lower prices and return them to the brokers, making money on the difference. When the Dow stood at 359 on September 23, 1929 (the market had topped out twenty days earlier at 381), he placed what would be a hugely profitable bet that Chase’s stock would fall.
[. . .]
Before shorting those shares, Wiggin executed another profitable and shady strategy, using his bank’s funds to plump the shares up. He placed $200 million of his depositors’ money into trusts that speculated in Chase stock, thus participating in the very pool operations that artificially boosted its price during the run-up to the Crash. He pocketed $10.4 million from these trades, including $4 million from shorting the shares he drove up (after he drove them up) during the two-week period preceding the Crash. His justification for selling his own shares while Chase Securities was pushing customers to buy them was that the price was “ridiculously high.” He had, in effect, bet against all the other Chase shareholders who had trusted in his hype about the firm.
Another person who profited greatly from the financial crash was Joseph P. Kennedy, father of future president John F. Kennedy. The famous story, likely apocryphal but parroted by NPR, The Washington Post, PBS and any number of mainstream outlets, is that Kennedy, a savvy stock trader, knew the market was overheated when a random shoeshine boy gave him stock tips.
If this story is to be believed, Joe’s random interaction with a shoeshine boy in 1929 was one of the most profitable conversations of his life. Not only did Kennedy sell off most of his stock holdings shortly before the crash, he aggressively shorted the markets, meaning that while most of America—and much of the world—was plunged into one of the deepest and most prolonged financial crises in the history of the country, the Kennedy family flourished. In 1977, eight years after Joe’s death, the New York Timesestimated the family fortune to be somewhere between $300 and $500 million.
There are more than enough reasons to doubt that it was actually a brief chat with a shoeshine boy that led to Kennedy’s remarkable good fortune, however. The patriarch of the Kennedy dynasty had a reputation as an unscrupulous businessman, including the persistent allegations that he made his fortune in bootlegging during the Prohibition era. And so it was a shock to the nation when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Kennedy to head the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934.
Even the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Historical Society struggles to explain the choice. “Kennedy had profited handsomely from financial manipulation,” their website frankly admits, “but he understood keenly the need to balance the interests of the people with the imperatives of the financial markets.” For his part, when asked why he had tapped a well-known scoundrel like Kennedy to head such an agency, President Roosevelt is said to have replied: “Takes one to catch one.”
That the SEC, the “independent federal agency” tasked with regulating the markets, should have an admitted market manipulator as its first chair should not be surprising when the agency’s track record is examined. Time and again, the SEC has not just allowed market manipulation to take place, but actively facilitated it.
When the largest Ponzi scheme in market history, Bernie Madoff’s unbelievable $64.8 billion investment fraud scam, came to a crashing halt with his arrest in December of 2008, attention turned to the SEC. How could the agency, which had investigated Madoff’s investment firm multiple times, not have halted the scam earlier?
A subsequent Inspector General report made the scope of this “failure” even more unbelievable, finding that “between June 1992 and December 2008 when Madoff confessed, the SEC received six substantive complaints that raised significant red flags concerning Madoff’s hedge fund operations and should have led to questions about whether Madoff was actually engaged in trading.” After excoriating the agency for its incompetence time and again over the course of two decades of failed opportunities, the report concludes:
As the foregoing demonstrates, despite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madofi’s trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had these efforts been made with appropriate follow-up at any time beginning in June of 1992 until December 2008, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme well before Madoff confessed.
HARRY MARKOPOLOS: I gift wrapped and delivered the largest Ponzi scheme in history to them and somehow they couldn’t be bothered to conduct a thorough and proper investigation because they were too busy on matters of higher priority. If a $50 billion Ponzi scheme doesn’t make the SEC’s priority list, then I want to know who sets their priorities.
Similarly, when Enron shook the markets in 2001 by declaring the then-largest bankruptcy in history after its systemic accounting fraud was exposed, the question of the SEC’s role in the scandal arose. Why had the agency not caught on to the scam? A subsequent Senate Committee report excoriated the commission, noting that the “watchdog” had only opened one (unrelated) investigation into Enron in the past decade, that it repeatedly missed warning signs of corporate misconduct, that it granted the company unusual leeway in using mark-to-market accounting for its transactions and did not even seek to validate the models employed by the energy giant. In the end, the committee concluded that the entire affair represented a “systemic and catastrophic failure” of the SEC.
But the SEC did not use the lessons learned in these “systemic and catastrophic failures” to stop such fraud from taking place in the future. In fact, the Commission responded to these “failures” not by stringently cracking down on these scams, but by helping to facilitate new kinds of untraceable accounting trickery.
In the wake of the signal “failures” of SEC and other regulators to prevent the scandalous accounting fraud and subsequent catastrophic failures of Enron, Worldcom and Tyco, the US Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a federal law intended to “protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes.” The nature of those “other purposes” soon became apparent as the devil emerged from the details of the software that promised to streamline the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance process for companies operating in the new regulatory environment.
One of these software solutions was EmailXtender, an email archiving program designed to help companies comply with Sarbanes-Oxley reporting requirements. The program was supposed to create a permanent record of emails so that auditors would be able to access all communications in the future, but, according to Richard Grove, who was working as a software salesman selling the program to prospective corporate clients, the program actually provided companies with a way to permanently and untraceably delete those records.
RICHARD GROVE: So a few weeks later in August of 2003 I was at a client called the NASD— which later changed its name so it’s now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority—and the NASD was looking at our product and they wanted to use it internally. And one of the guys across the table says to me, “Hey, wait a minute. This product has a back door! Because right here where you’re supposed to take this information and put it on the write-once-read-many storage, which is a type of permanent storage,” he said, “There’s this jar file and you can delete the jar file and then there’s no evidence of that transaction whatsoever.”
So he was showing me across a table that there’s a loophole, there’s a back door in a software that allows nefarious transactions to go on and subsequently they didn’t buy the software they’re like, “This is bullshit, this isn’t worth the money. This is not what it’s supposed to be and you should do something about that.” Now, I had management from my side in the meeting so I went to my managers afterwards and I’m like, “What’s this all about and why what’s going on with this?” and I was told not to talk about it.
Concerned with the possibility for mass financial fraud that was being enabled by this software, Grove took his concerns to the SEC. But instead of acting on this information to launch an investigation into the company and the software, the SEC not only dismissed Grove’s warning, but went out and bought that very software for their own use.
RICHARD GROVE: Right now the SEC reports to the President. So at the end of the day when the SEC was telling me they’re not interested, they’re telling me they’re not interested because I’m tying the Bush administration in with billionaire Richard Egan and his company that’s helping these companies do this. Of course they don’t want to sponsor that getting out to the public.
I filed a lawsuit, I represented myself in court against a multi-billion dollar international corporation and after three years—and after proving my case in court, including the fact that the SEC acted with complicity to protect the perpetrators—my case was dismissed on a technicality. Recognizing that the events I proved in court actually happened but were conveniently “outside the statute of limitations for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
And once I understood the purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations was to keep these companies from deleting files and that the back door in the software allow these companies to delete files— and more importantly the fact that someone outside of the company that’s not even associated with the company but has access to that software could launder money or steal money or just delete money from corporations and switch financial records all around without anyone, any investigator, any auditor being able to audit that—those things I thought were interesting. But when the SEC, after I told them, bought the software with the back door in it and started to use it for itself then I knew that the SEC was not there to regulate like I thought it was. They were also, “Hey, we can find a benefit from this back door in a software. We can delete files now. Now we’re above the law!”
But of all the various schemes for manipulating the markets, none have been quite so brazen as the Plunge Protection Team.
Formally known as the “Working Group on Financial Markets,” the Plunge Protection Team, or PPT, was born in the wake of another stock market crash: Black Monday of October 1987. Far from a “conspiracy theory” or “internet rumour,” the formation of the group was announced in the pages of the Federal Register on March 22, 1988, which contained, on page 9421, the text of Executive Order 12631, a seemingly mundane announcement signed by President Reagan on March 18, 1988.
The order, citing “the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987,” goes on to establish a working group of the treasury secretary, the Fed chair, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). It empowers the group to “consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible” and to report back to the president.
Hidden behind this innocuous-sounding rhetoric is an organization that has been at work for the last three decades, quietly but documentably intervening to prop up the markets whenever they start plunging—or even sagging.
The name “Plunge Protection Team” comes from a Washington Post article that ran under that headline in February 1997. In that piece, staff writer Brett D. Fromson revealed how the Working Group on Financial Markets (like “defense planners in the Cold War period”) war-game various market cataclysms and their response to them. One scenario Fromson described involves a large sell-off on a Monday morning after a week of tanking markets.
“The chairman of the New York Stock Exchange has called the White House chief of staff and asked permission to close the world’s most important stock market. [. . .] In the Oval Office, the president confers with the members of his Working Group on Financial Markets—the secretary of the treasury and the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The officials conclude that a presidential order to close the NYSE would only add to the market’s panic, so they decide to ride out the storm. The Working Group struggles to keep financial markets open so that trading can continue. By the closing bell, a modest rally is underway.”
The article acknowledged that each of the Plunge Protection Team’s constituent agencies (the treasury, the Fed, the SEC and the CFTC) have a “confidential plan” on file to deal with a market meltdown. But aside from trivial details (the SEC’s plan is called the “red book,” for example, after the color of the document’s cover) nothing of substance is revealed. How, exactly, do the agencies plan to “keep financial markets open so that trading can continue”?
A major clue to the PPT manipulation puzzle came in the form of a 1989 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Robert Heller, who was at the time exiting a three-year stint as Federal Reserve System governor. Entitled “Have Fed Support Stock Market, Too,” Heller’s op-ed argued that the so-called “circuit breakers” set up after the Black Monday 1987 scare were not sufficient to prevent another recurrence of panic. “Instead,” he opined, “an appropriate institution should be charged with the job of preventing chaos in the market: the Federal Reserve.” In Heller’s vision, the Fed could prevent a market rout by stepping in to purchase stock futures contracts during sell-offs.
Rather than regarding Heller’s piece as a mere op-ed offering a proposal for something the Fed could do in the future, however, some reporters—like John Crudele, the man who drew attention to Heller’s “proposal” in the first place—have suggested that the Wall Street Journal piece was in fact a trial balloon, preparing the public for the eventual revelation that the Fed was already intervening in the markets.
If Heller’s op-ed was a trial balloon, the full truth was finally revealed to the public in the wake of “the day that changed everything.” After all, if the PPT was ever going to intervene to prop up the markets, the pandemonium of 9/11 and the ensuing market sell-off presented them with the perfect opportunity to do so.
And so it was that George Stephanopolous appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America on September 17, 2001, to blithely announce to the American public that their markets were a sham:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS: What I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets. [. . .] The Fed in 1989 created what is called the ‘Plunge Protection Team’—which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and the other exchanges—and they have been meeting informally so far. And they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem. They have in the past acted more formally . . . I don’t know if you remember, but in 1998, there was a crisis called the Long-Term Capital Crisis. It was a major currency trader, and there was a global currency crisis. And they, with the guidance of the Fed, all of the banks got together when it started to collapse and propped up the currency markets. And they have plans in place to consider [doing] that [again] if the markets start to fall.
And, just like when it was calmly admitted in 2016 that the “record bull run” since 2008 had been a Federal Reserve-created mirage, the public was flat-out told in 2001 that the Fed would coordinate with the banks to interfere in the markets as needed. And in both cases, these revelations were promptly memory-holed and ignored in all future reporting of the market’s gyrations.
So what do the manipulations of the Plunge Protection Team actually look like?
On Monday, February 5, 2018, things were playing out on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange much like the “nightmare scenario” painted in the 1997 Washington Post article by Fromson. After a 666-point decline the previous Friday, the Dow Jones was down a further 1,600 points on the day, as big a decline as the index had ever seen. . . . And then, miraculously, late in the afternoon “[s]omeone arbitrarily and aggressively started buying stocks and halved the loss.”
As John Crudele, the journalist that has been covering the PPT and its machinations for decades now, observed at the time:
Nobody has ever proven that the Fed and its friends actually protect Wall Street against plunges. It is, you might say, the Loch Ness monster of the financial world — people get glimpses of something but never see a clear picture.
That’s what happened during the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. Telephone records I obtained showed numerous calls between then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and contacts on Wall Street on days when the stock market was tanking and the decline needed to be stopped.
The action in stocks on those days looked a lot like what happened on Monday, when the Dow was down nearly 1,600 points and was suddenly jerked back to a smaller loss.
For decades now, a similar scene has played out on days of dramatic market plunges. After an initial sell off, a late afternoon rally by a mystery buyer would reassure the markets and claw back the loss. Sometimes, the manipulation was so obvious it left literal straight lines in the charts. But still, no official word ever came from the Plunge Protection Team itself.
. . . until December 2018, that is. Ten months after Crudele called out the PPT’s actions to prop up the Dow Jones after its 1600 point plunge, then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin openly announced that he was calling on the Plunge Protection Team to “assure normal market operations” during a December stock slide that was on track to be the worst December in the US markets since 1930. As Forbes put it in their headline about the move: “Mnuchin Calls Plunge Protection Team; Stocks Soar One Day Later.” In the article, Forbes writer Adam Sarhan noted of the events following Mnuchin’s open call to the PPT:
“The market was closed on Tuesday for Christmas but stocks soared 1,000 points (the largest gain since the last bear market during the financial crisis) on Wednesday. Literally, the first day after that call was made. I can’t make this up.”
With a gift for understatement, Sarhan concludes that: “One important lesson investors can learn from the market action over the past decade is that the government plays a very important role.”
From crooked regulators to outright manipulation, from “failed” investigations to insider trading windfalls, the markets have been one big con job on the American public, and the people of the world, since their inception. In fact, there are many more examples of fraud, deception and manipulation that could be documented.
There is, for example, the testimony of Bill Murphy to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission during a hearing on suppression of precious metal prices.
BART CHILTON: But can you give the Commission some specific evidence, some specific examples of how you think that’s occurring, when you think that’s occurring?
BILL MURPHY: Yes I can and I had 11 years worth of evidence that all hangs together here. But somebody came to my attention two days ago of a whistleblower nature that we’re going to handle hand to the press afterwards and we think it’s very important for the American public and this hearing to have this information.
On March 23rd, 2010, GATA Director Adrian Douglas was contacted by a whistleblower by the name of Andrew Maguire. Mr. McGuire, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is a metal trader in London. He has been told first hand by traders working for JPMorgan Chase, that JPM manipulates the precious metals markets and they brag how they make money doing so.
In November 2009, he contacted the CFTC Enforcement Division to report this criminal activity. He described in detail the way JPM signals to the markets its intentions to take down the precious metals. Traders recognize these signals and make money shorting the metals alongside JPM. Maguire explained how there are routine market manipulations at the time of option expiry, non-farm payroll data releases, and COMEX contract rollover, as well as ad-hoc events.
On February 3 he gave two days’ advance warning by email to Eliud Ramirez, a senior investigator for the CFTC’s Enforcement Division, that the precious metals would be attacked upon the release of the non-farm payroll data on February 5. Then on February 5, as it played out exactly as predicted, further e-mails were sent to Ramirez while the manipulation was in progress.
It would not be possible to predict such a market move unless the market was manipulated.
In an email on that day, Mr. Maguire wrote: “It is common knowledge here in London amongst the metals traders that it is JPM’s intent to flush out and cover as many shorts as possible prior to any discussion in March about position limits. I feel sorry for all those not in the loop. A serious amount of money was made and lost today and in my opinion as a result of the CFTC [allowing] by your own definition an illegal concentrated and manipulative position to continue.”
Or there was the 2010 Flash Crash, the harrowing 35-minute window from 2:32 PM to 3:07 PM on May 6, 2010, when the Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points . . . and then gained most of it back. The incredible and unprecedented swing left traders and financial talking heads completely stymied, but after five years of relentless investigation, the Department of Justice presented the man that they framed as the arch-mastermind that set off the most alarming collapse-and-recovery in the history of the markets: a day trader living in his parent’s house in Hounslow.
NARRATOR: 15 minutes of chaos that shook the world’s biggest markets.
NEWS ANCHOR: What the heck is going on down there?
REPORTER: I don’t know. There is fear. This is capitulation, really.
LIAM VAUGHN: On May 6th, 2010, without warning, the U.S. stock market and futures markets just crashed.
REPORTER: It can’t be there. That is not a real price.
ANCHOR: The flash crash, which wiped a trillion dollars off the value of American companies in five minutes. . . .
LIAM VAUGHN: To look at a price chart, it looked like a kind of runaway elephant.
ANCHOR: It took authorities five years, guys, to track down this lone British trader, allegedly involved in a 2010 flash crash.
REPORTER: Navinder Singh Sarao, dubbed the hound of Hounslow, has been accused of manipulating the market.
REPORTER: U.S. regulators claim he made about $40 Million
Despite the fact that multipleprofessors, mainstream newspapers and even a former rogue trader himself all testified to the impossibility that the incredible rollercoaster of the Flash Crash was really caused by the “spoofing” antics of a lone trader, the story was effectively shelved and the underlying issue of the algorithmically-driven High Frequency Trading—which involves bots performing large numbers of orders in fractions of a second and requires traders to pay millions of dollars to co-locate their servers with the exchanges’ computers to give them a head start on their competitors that is measured in milliseconds—was never addressed.
Or there was the insider trading scandal of 2020, when multiple senators were probed for insider trading after being briefed by the senate’s health and foreign affairs committees about the likely effects of the coronavirus scare in the US.
JESSICA SMITH: Yeah, Adam, several senators are facing criticism this morning after reports that they sold stock after being briefed about the coronavirus. But before the market started tanking, four senators are said to have made trades. But two in particular are facing a lot of criticism.
The first is Senator Richard Burr. ProPublica reports on February 13th he sold between $628,000 to $1.7 million dollars worth of stock in 33 separate transactions. He is the chairman of the Senate Intel committee and he was getting daily briefings about the coronavirus at that time according to Reuters. So there are a lot of questions about why he made those trades.
In fact, there are many, many such examples of market rigging, insider trading and manipulation of stock and commodity prices for the benefit of the bankers and their political allies that could be detailed, not just in the US markets, but in markets around the world. But such an exhaustive list would be, by this point, unnecessary. The markets are rigged, and that rigging is pervasive and systemic.
So it should come as no surprise that the GameStop pandemonium began when it was observed that another common method of market manipulation was taking place on GameStop’s stock: naked shorting.
Naked shorting involves traders taking advantages of loopholes and discrepancies in paper and electronic trading systems to short shares that don’t even exist. In this case, hedge funds, convinced that the flailing gaming retailer was going to go the way of BlockBuster Video and seeing the December 2020 reports of operating losses, began aggressively shorting the stock. By the time the “wallstreetbets” community on reddit discovered the naked shorting operation, the hedge funds were already 140% short on shares of GameStop, meaning that 40% more stock was being sold short than even existed.
This led to the massive short squeeze in January, with redditors and other retail investors buying up shares in GameStop and running up the stock price, forcing the hedge funds to buy up stock to cover their shorts and exposing them to billions of dollars in losses.
But that was only the beginning of the revelations of market rigging in the GameStop saga. The remarkable squeeze was brought to an abrupt halt when Robinhood—the electronic trading platform that burst on the scene in 2014 promising to “democratize the stock market” with its zero-commission trading app—stopped trading on GameStop and other wallstreetbets-driven trades like AMC Entertainment, BlackBerry and Nokia. The official explanation for the trading halt—that Robinhood had to suspend trading in the stocks until it could increase its collateral with the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation—merely underlines the point that the average mom-and-pop investor will continue to be thwarted from trading while the massive hedge funds and market makers with direct access to the markets will always be able to cover their positions in the event of any popular, “democratic” market activity.
This point was further underlined when yet another aspect of the retail investing scam was revealed: payment for order flow, or PFOF, in which hedge funds pay retail brokerages for access to their customers’ trades. With this information, hedge funds can not only buy orders before they are processed and flip the trade back to the market, pocketing the spread between the buy and sell price, but they can front run orders, effectively cutting in front of the brokerages’ clients to buy hot stocks before the retail investors. As it turns out, Robinhood made nearly $700 million selling their clients’ trade data to the big hedge funds in 2020 alone.
Nor was it a surprise when it was learned that Biden’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, was paid over $800,000 in speaking fees by Citadel LLC which operates both Citadel—a hedge fund that provided a $2 billion emergency backstop for GameStop short seller Melvin Capital—and Citadel Securities—”a market maker that handles about 40% of U.S. retail stock order flow, including from brokerages like free-trading app Robinhood.” When asked whether Yellen would recuse herself from advising the president on the GameStop situation, White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded that she wouldn’t, saying that Yellen was an expert and that she deserved the money.
REPORTER: . . . And I had a follow-up on the markets and everything that’s happening with GameStop. You did mention, I believe yesterday, that the treasury secretary is monitoring the situation and she’s, kind of, on top of it. There have been some kind of concerns about her previous engagements with Citadel and speaking fees that she has received from Citadel. Are there any plans to have her recuse herself from advising the President on GameStop and the whole Robinhood situation?
PSAKI: Well, just to be clear, what I said was that we have—the treasury secretary is now confirmed. Obviously, we have a broad economic team. The SEC put out a statement yesterday that I referred to. But I don’t think I have anything more for you on it, other than to say, separate from the GameStop issue, the secretary of treasury is one of the world-renowned experts on markets, on the economy. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone she was paid to give her perspective and advice before she came into office.
The entire affair grew even more absurd when internet researchers discovered that Jen Psaki’s relative, Jeff Psaki, himself worked for Citadel. The “fact checkers” at Newsweek were quick to rule the story as false, however, not because Psaki’s relative did not in fact work for Citadel, but because “a source close to Jeff” told Newsweek that “Jen and Jeff Psaki are distant second cousins but have no relationship.”
Whatever further twists and turns the GameStop saga takes, the conclusion is foregone: the “little people” may be able to get one past the goalkeepers of the manipulated markets here and there, but those deviations from the standard will always return to the status quo. In the end, the hedge funds and their billions will be protected while the little guy will be misinformed, steered down blind alleys, panicked, tricked into investing in bubbles, and, ultimately, fleeced for the benefit of the financial vultures and their bought-and-paid-for politicians and regulatory friends.
At last the David and Goliath story that has been woven around the GameStop insurrection is revealed for what it is: a story, a fable, a convenient narrative to trick the public back into the phoney, manipulated markets to once again take their place at the casino table. It is designed to trick people into thinking that this time they’ll be able to win against the house. But that is not how a casino works. In the central-bank inflated, derivatives-laden mystery markets of Wall Street, the games are rigged, the dice is loaded, and the house always wins in the end.
None of this is surprising to those who have known for decades that the markets are rigged. But every generation needs to see the deception play out in real time to understand just how deep and pervasive the systemic rot is. From this point on, those who have experienced the effects of this deception only have to answer one question: Are you going to continue to play Wall Street’s rigged game, or are you going to take your chips off the table and invest in local businesses and projects with the people on Main Street?
Another outstanding mini-documentary from Aaron and Melissa Dykes which explains more about the history of scientific mind control.
Expansion of ideas on cybernetics, and an analysis in Alan Turing’s role in not only creating Intelligent Machinery, but his little-known role in probing the chemical formation of genetic/biological life through morphogenesis.
Quoted Sources & Recommended Reading:
-Brenner, S. (2012). Turing centenary: Lifes code script. Nature, 482(7386), 461-461. doi:10.1038/482461a
-Copeland, J. (2004). The essential Turing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Heims, S. J. (1987). John Von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From mathematics to the technologies of life and death. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Heims, S. J., & Heims, S. J. (1993). Constructing a social science for postwar America: The cybernetics group, 1946-1953. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Hofstadter, D., & Teuscher, C. (2004). Alan Turing: Life and legacy of a great thinker ; with 4 tables. Berlin: Springer.
-Kay, L. E. (1993). The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the rise of the new biology. New York: Oxford University Press.
-Kay, L. E. (2001). Who wrote the book life?: A history of the genetic code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-Mcculloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4), 115-133. doi:10.1007/bf02478259
-McCulloch, W. S. (1965). Embodiments of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
-Neumann, J. V., Neumann, J. V., & Neumann, J. V. (1958). The computer and the brain. New Haven: Yale University.
-Pias, C. (2016). Cybernetics – the Macy Conferences 1946-1953: The complete transactions. Zurich: Diaphanes.
-Teuscher, C. (2002). Turings connectionism: An investigation of neural network architectures. London: Springer.
-WIENER, N. (1948). CYBERNETICS OR CONTROL AND COMMUNICATION IN THE ANIMAL AND THE MACHINE. S.l.: MIT PRESS.
-Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. New York: Da Capo Press.
-Wiener, N. (1966). God and Golem, Inc. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Pr., Massachusetts Inst. of Technology.
Programming and entertainment through mass public ceremonies is not new, but could have even achieved in such a degraded form in our day through decades of planning, as well as the planned counter-culture revolution of the 1960’s. These decades prepared us for a new AEON, now being ushered in through greater and greater levels of degradation. Mass public ritual ceremonies are one of the chief ways we are initiated into this spiritual state: From the Beatles to Ariana Grande, we are being indoctrinated.
Following on from his seminal AV8 & AV8.1 presentations on Artificial Intelligence and Trans-Humanism, Dr Graham Downing explores the accelerating existential threat to HUMANITY from the implementation of 5G technology and the ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT).
“Know your enemy.” Almost everyone understands that “government” is often (if not always) corrupt, often vindictive, often even malicious, but of those who complain about and protest authoritarian injustice, few truly understand what they are up against—few really understand the nature of the beast, what drives it, how it functions, and more importantly, what can defeat it. As it happens, a certain well-studied, well-understood and well-documented “personality disorder” (for lack of a better term) can give us a far better understanding of what the monster called “government” really is.
This is a video of a talk I gave at the 2018 “Anarchapulco.” Many thanks to all those who made the event happen, who recorded and edited the videos of so many different talks, and many thanks to those who are ramping things up even more for 2019. If you don’t yet have tickets for Anarchapulco 2019 (www.anarchapulco.com), get a move on. It will be unlike anything you’ve ever experienced before.
Dr. Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University joins us to discuss his research with Catherine Austin Fitts into the $21 trillion in unaccounted transactions on the books of the US Department of Defence and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. We discuss what we know and don’t know about the subject, the Pentagon’s nonsensical and inadequate excuses for the debacle, the new accounting guideline that legally allows every department of the federal government to create fake and altered books for public consumption, the recent failed Pentagon audit, the government’s refusal to provide any information about the problem, the failure of congress to pursue the issue, and the failure of the press to report on it.
Recently the well known PC Mag writer John C. Dvorak was fired from writing for PC MAG, after he wrote an article critical of 5g. He appeared to talk about it in an interview with Josh Del Sol, linked below.
5G Got me Fired by John C. Dvorak
As you all know, I was unceremoniously fired from PC Magazine on Sept. 20th, 2018. I just figured it was the new people coming in and I was an unneeded throwback to the old regime.
This sort of thing happens a lot. Then one of the No Agenda producers noticed a recent column of mine was pulled from the magazine and redirected to someone else’s column about the same subject. It also went missing from the index of Dvorak columns. If you did a google search for the column it showed up but clicking on the Google link resulted in a re-direction to the other column.
The difference was my column was interpreted as critical of 5G. The replacement (and an additional column that came later), was more of a cheerleading column.
In fact, my column was more reporting than opinion as I was reflecting on all the bad press 5G was getting from every corner. My conclusion was that, unless this stopped, 5G would never get off the ground.
I never once considered that expunging my column then firing me would be part of this process. I’ve asked the editors about this and got no replies.
This is a cautionary tale. Anyone writing for any publisher in today’s commercial market, where the managed advertorial and native ad seems to be the only way to make money, needs to be cautious.
A former successful and ambitious Investment Banker who turned Whistle-blower, Mads Palsvig, has now become a controversial and outspoken Politician in Denmark. He is the founder of a very alternative political party called “JFK21” ~ “Earth Freedom Knowledge”, and has been revealing conspiracy secrets about hidden agendas orchestrated by elite “banksters” and members of secret societies, who “run the world” behind the scenes.
In this dynamic and eye-opening in-depth hard-talk interview with AGE OF TRUTH TV presenter, Lucas Alexander, Mads Palsvig is telling his surprising life story of his highly successful life for 30 years working as an Investment Banker and Bank Trader for some of the worlds top banks, such as; Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston and the 2 top Danish banks, UniBank and Danske Bank. He was stationed in London and Hong Kong trading state obligations.
When he was fired without warning, possibly after asking the wrong questions to a member of The Federal Reserve, his life changed dramatically, and he began a new journey as a whistle-blower. He discovered the manipulation of how money really is created, and who owns the banks, a banking cartel of top elite bloodline families, commonly known under the popular term, “The Illuminati”, and how they dictate the policies of the world: Who gets rich or not, the political system and the mainstream media. Mads Palsvig says that `depopulation´ is the main goal of the elitists behind “The New World Order”.
SELECTED TOPICS DISCUSSED:
– The Money Creation. Inside trading and the manipulation of global
monetary institutions.
– The Earths population aka. Debt Slaves to the global “banksters”.
– Reality: Upside down of everything we know.
– Illuminati bloodline families and The New World Order.
– Depopulation of 95% of the people on Earth.
– The Federal Reserve & The Council Of Foreign Relations.
– Mind Control and Television/Media lies.
– DONALD TRUMP and his plan to “drain the swamp”.
– Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.
– Elections and the political system.
– The Yellow Vests.
– Freedom of speech vs. Hate Speech.
– Feminism and the Gender Agenda.
– 5G – the big threat to humanity. A.I. (Artificial intelligence).
– Child trafficking and dark rituals. Vatican scandals.
– Faith in God and Christianity.
…….that and MUCH MORE in this controversial show featuring Mads Palsvig, who is campaigning to become an elected member of the Danish parliament representing his new political party JFK21.
What is the Science of Government? The Minds of Men is a three-year investigation into the experimentation, art, and practice of social engineering and mind control during the Cold War… A mind-bending journey into the past that gives startling insight into the world we are living in today.
GET $5 OFF when you order the DVD, use code SUBPROJECT119 @ TheMindsofMen.net (includes extras: extended interview, deleted scene, behind the scenes featurette and trailer).
WHO ARE THE GODS OF MONEY? The NEW WORLD ORDER enslavement plan! THE CLIMATE CHANGE construct! The ruling elite´s successful economic crisis & The Federal Reserve! Media manipulation lies! Vaccinations and chemical medicine that makes people sick! The 9/11 lie! Oil and energy = Rothchilds vs. Rockefellers! The political voting scam! Nikola Tesla and Free Energy! GMO food poison! The Bilderberg Group! etc…
These controversial and eye-opening topics and more – discussed in this interview with award-winning American author, professor, historian, investigative reporter, geopolitical analyst, economic and conspiracy researcher:
F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL.
AGE OF TRUTH TV´s Lucas Alexander is interviewing F. William Engdahl is this straight forward hard-talk interview, filmed at the Open Mind Conference in Skanderborg, Denmark in September 2013.
“F. William Engdahl has been researching and writing about the world political scene for more than thirty years. His various books on geopolitics—the interaction between international power politics, economics and geography—have been translated into 14 foreign languages from Chinese to French, from German to Japanese.
His most recent works trace the strategies and events that led to the rise of the US as an international superpower. He describes the emergence after 1945 of an American power as a new kind of Empire not based upon sole military occupation of land, but control of vital resources. Domination was through creation of an informal empire where control of finance, of the basic food chain, of energy—above all of oil, would be the basis for what would become the greatest concentration of power in history, an American Sole Superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Born in Minnesota, William Engdahl grew up in Texas. After earning a degree in politics from Princeton University, and graduate study in comparative economics at Stockholm University, he worked as an economist and investigative freelance journalist in New York and Europe.
He has lectured on contemporary geopolitics as Visiting Professor at Beijing University of Chemical Technology and delivers talks and private seminars around the world on different aspects of economics and politics with focus on political risk. He has given talks at the Ministry of Science and Technology Conference on Alternative Energy, Beijing; London Centre for Energy Policy Studies of Hon. Sheikh Zaki Yamani; Turkish-Eurasian Business Council of Istanbul, Global Investors’ Forum (GIF) Montreaux Switzerland; Bank Negara Indonesia; the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies; the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Croatian Chamber of Commerce and Economics.
F. William Engdahl also contributes regularly to a number of international publications on economics and political affairs including Asia Times, FinancialSense.com, 321.gold.com, The Real News, RT.com OpEdge, RT TV, Asia Inc., GlobalResearch.com, Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun and Foresight magazine. He has been a frequent contributor to the New York Grant’sInvestor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International, Globus in Croatia, and has been interviewed on various geopolitical topics on numerous international TV and radio programs including USA Coast-to-Coast with George Noory, Al Jazeera, CCTV and Sina.com (China), Korea Broadcasting System (KBS), and Channel 1 Russian TV.
William is a Research Associate of Michel Chossudovsky’s Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada and member of the editorial board of Eurasia magazine. He currently lives in Germany and in addition to writing and giving interviews on current events, consults as a political risk economist for various private organizations, major European banks and private investor groups. Why the “F.” in F. William Engdahl? That’s an interesting question.”
What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was. This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.
TRANSCRIPT:
INTRODUCTION
November 11, 1918.
All across the Western front, the clocks that were lucky enough to escape the four years of shelling chimed the eleventh hour. And with that the First World War came to an end.
From 10 o’clock to 11 — the hour for the cessation of hostilities — the opposed batteries simply raised hell. Not even the artillery prelude to our advance into the Argonne had anything on it. To attempt an advance was out of the question. It was not a barrage. It was a deluge.
[. . .]
Nothing quite so electrical in effect as the sudden stop that came at 11 A. M. has ever occurred to me. It was 10:60 precisely and — the roar stopped like a motor car hitting a wall. The resulting quiet was uncanny in comparison. From somewhere far below ground, Germans began to appear. They clambered to the parapets and began to shout wildly. They threw their rifles, hats, bandoleers, bayonets and trench knives toward us. They began to sing.
And just like that, it was over. Four years of the bloodiest carnage the world had ever seen came to a stop as sudden and bewildering as its start. And the world vowed “Never again.”
Each year, we lay the wreath. We hear “The Last Post.” We mouth the words “never again” like an incantation. But what does it mean? To answer this question, we have to understand what WWI was.
WWI was an explosion, a breaking point in history. In the smoldering shell hole of that great cataclysm lay the industrial-era optimism of never-ending progress. Old verities about the glory of war lay strewn around the battlefields of that “Great War” like a fallen soldier left to die in No Man’s Land, and along with it lay all the broken dreams of a world order that had been blown apart. Whether we know it or not, we here in the 21st century are still living in the crater of that explosion, the victims of a First World War that we are only now beginning to understand.
What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was.
This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.
PART ONE – TO START A WAR
June 28, 1914.
The Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophie are in Sarajevo for a military inspection. In retrospect, it’s a risky provocation, like tossing a match into a powder keg. Serbian nationalism is rising, the Balkans are in a tumult of diplomatic crises and regional wars, and tensions between the kingdom of Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are set to spill over.
But despite warnings and ill omens, the royal couple’s security is extremely lax. They board an open-top sports car and proceed in a six-car motorcade along a pre-announced route. After an inspection of the military barracks, they head toward the Town Hall for a scheduled reception by the Mayor. The visit is going ahead exactly as planned and precisely on schedule.
And then the bomb goes off.
As we now know, the motorcade was a death trap. Six assassins lined the royal couple’s route that morning, armed with bombs and pistols. The first two failed to act, but the third, Nedeljko Čabrinović, panicked and threw his bomb onto the folded back cover of the Archduke’s convertible. It bounced off onto the street, exploding under the next car in the convoy. Franz Ferdinand and his wife, unscathed, were rushed on to the Town Hall, passing the other assassins along the route too quickly for them to act.
Having narrowly escaped death, the Archduke called off the rest of his scheduled itinerary to visit the wounded from the bombing at the hospital. By a remarkable twist of fate, the driver took the couple down the wrong route, and, when ordered to reverse, stopped the car directly in front of the delicatessen where would-be assassin Gavrilo Princip had gone after having failing in his mission along the motorcade. There, one and a half metres in front of Princip, were the Archduke and his wife. He took two shots, killing both of them.
Yes, even the official history books—the books written and published by the “winners”—record that the First World War started as the result of a conspiracy. After all, it was—as all freshman history students are taught—the conspiracy to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the outbreak of war.
That story, the official story of the origins of World War I, is familiar enough by now: In 1914, Europe was an interlocking clockwork of alliances and military mobilization plans that, once set in motion, ticked inevitably toward all out warfare. The assassination of the Archduke was merely the excuse to set that clockwork in motion, and the resulting “July crisis” of diplomatic and military escalations led with perfect predictability to continental and, eventually, global war. In this carefully sanitized version of history, World War I starts in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.
But this official history leaves out so much of the real story about the build up to war that it amounts to a lie. But it does get one thing right: The First World War was the result of a conspiracy.
To understand this conspiracy we must turn not to Sarajevo and the conclave of Serbian nationalists plotting their assassination in the summer of 1914, but to a chilly drawing room in London in the winter of 1891. There, three of the most important men of the age—men whose names are but dimly remembered today—are taking the first concrete steps toward forming a secret society that they have been discussing amongst themselves for years. The group that springs from this meeting will go on to leverage the wealth and power of its members to shape the course of history and, 23 years later, will drive the world into the first truly global war.
Their plan reads like outlandish historical fiction. They will form a secret organization dedicated to the “extension of British rule throughout the world” and “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire.” The group is to be structured along the lines of a religious brotherhood (the Jesuit order is repeatedly invoked as a model) divided into two circles: an inner circle, called “The Society of the Elect,” who are to direct the activity of the larger, outer circle, dubbed “The Association of Helpers” who are not to know of the inner circle’s existence.
“British rule” and “inner circles” and “secret societies.” If presented with this plan today, many would say it was the work of an imaginative comic book writer. But the three men who gathered in London that winter afternoon in 1891 were no mere comic book writers; they were among the wealthiest and most influential men in British society, and they had access to the resources and the contacts to make that dream into a reality.
Present at the meeting that day: William T. Stead, famed newspaper editor whose Pall Mall Gazette broke ground as a pioneer of tabloid journalism and whose Review of Reviews was enormously influential throughout the English-speaking world; Reginald Brett, later known as Lord Esher, an historian and politician who became friend, confidant and advisor to Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, and King George V, and who was known as one of the primary powers-behind-the-throne of his era; and Cecil Rhodes, the enormously wealthy diamond magnate whose exploits in South Africa and ambition to transform the African continent would earn him the nickname of “Colossus” by the satirists of the day.
But Rhodes’ ambition was no laughing matter. If anyone in the world had the power and ability to form such a group at the time, it was Cecil Rhodes.
Richard Grove, historical researcher and author, TragedyAndHope.com.
RICHARD GROVE: Cecil Rhodes also was from Britain. He was educated at Oxford, but he only went to Oxford after he went to South Africa. He had an older brother he follows into South Africa. The older brother was working in the diamond mines, and by the time Rhodes gets there he’s got a set up, and his brother says “I’m gonna go off and dig in the gold mines. They just found gold!” And so he leaves Cecil Rhodes, his younger brother—who’s, like, in his 20s—with this whole diamond mining operation. Rhodes then goes to Oxford, comes back down to South Africa with the help of Lord Rothschild, who had funding efforts behind De Beers and taking advantage of that situation. And from there they start to use what—there’s no other term than “slave labor,” which then turns in later to the apartheid policy of South Africa.
GERRY DOCHERTY: Well, Rhodes was particularly important because in many ways, at the end of the 19th century, he seriously epitomized where capitalism was [and] where wealth really lay.
DOCHERTY: Rhodes had the money and he had the contacts. He was a great Rothschild man and his mining wealth was literally uncountable. He wanted to associate himself with Oxford because Oxford gave him the kudos of the university of knowledge, of that kind of power.
And in fact that was centered in a very secretive place called “All Souls College.” Still you’ll find many references to All Souls College and “people behind the curtain” and such phrases [as] “power behind thrones.” Rhodes was centrally important in actually putting money up in order to begin to gather together like-minded people of great influence.
Rhodes was not shy about his ambitions, and his intentions to form such a group were known to many. Throughout his short life, Rhodes discussed his intentions openly with many of his associates, who, unsurprisingly, happened to be among the most influential figures in British society at that time.
More remarkably, this secret society—which was to wield its power behind the throne—was not a secret at all. TheNew York Times even published an article discussing the founding of the group in the April 9, 1902, edition of the paper, shortly after Rhodes’ death.
The article, headlined “Mr. Rhodes’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness” and carrying the remarkable sub-head “He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society Should Work to Secure the World’s Peace and a British-American Federation,” summarized this sensational plan by noting that Rhodes’ “idea for the development of the English-speaking race was the foundation of ‘a society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits.’” Noting that his vision involved uniting “the United States Assembly and our House of Commons to achieve ‘the peace of the world,’” the article quotes Rhodes as saying: “The only thing feasible to carry out this idea is a secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the world.”
This idea is laid down in black and white in a series of wills that Rhodes wrote throughout his life, wills that not only laid out his plan to create such a society and provided the funds to do so, but, even more remarkably, were collected in a volume published after his death by co-conspirator William T. Stead.
GROVE: Rhodes also left his great deal of money—not having any children, not having married, dying at a young age—left it in a very well-known last will and testament, of which there were several different editions naming different benefactors, naming different executors.
So in 1902 Cecil Rhodes dies. There’s a book published that contains his last will and testament. The guy who wrote the book, William T. Stead, was in charge of a British publication called The Review of Reviews. He was part of Rhodes’ Round Table group. He at one time was an executor for the will, and in that will it says that he laments the loss of America from the British Empire and that they should formulate a secret society with the specific aim of bringing America back into the Empire. Then he names all the countries that they need to include in this list to have world domination, to have an English-speaking union, to have British race as the enforced culture on all countries around the world.
The will contains the goal. The goal is amended over a series of years and supported and used to gain support. And then, by the time he dies in 1902, there’s funding, there’s a plan, there’s an agenda, there’s working groups, and it all launches and then takes hold. And then not too long later, you’ve got World War One and then from that you’ve got World War Two and then you’ve got a century of control and slavery that really could have been prevented.
When, at the time of Rhodes’ death in 1902, this “secret” society decided to partially reveal itself, it did so under the cloak of peace. It was only because they desired world peace, they insisted, that they had created their group in the first place, and only for the noblest of reasons that they aimed to “gradually absorb the wealth of the world.”
But contrary to this pacific public image, from its very beginnings the group was interested primarily in war. In fact, one of the very first steps taken by this “Rhodes Round Table” (as it was known by some) was to maneuver the British Empire into war in South Africa. This “Boer War” of 1899–1902 would serve a dual purpose: it would unite the disparate republics and colonies of South Africa into a single unit under British imperial control, and, not incidentally, it would bring the rich gold deposits of the Transvaal Republic into the orbit of the Rothschild/Rhodes-controlled British South Africa Company.
The war was, by the group’s own admission, entirely its doing. The point man for the operation was Sir Alfred Milner, a close associate of Rhodes and a member of the secret society’s inner circle who was then the governor of the British Cape Colony. Although largely forgotten today, Alfred Milner (later 1st Viscount Milner) was perhaps the most important single figure in Britain at the dawn of the 20th century. From Rhodes’ death in 1902, he became the unofficial head of the roundtable group and directed its operations, leveraging the vast wealth and influence of the group’s exclusive membership to his own ends.
With Milner, there was no compunction or moral hand-wringing about the methods used to bring about those ends. In a letter to Lord Roberts, Milner casually confessed to having engineered the Boer War: “I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable, before it was too late. It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not a very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a war.”
When Rhodes’ co-conspirator and fellow secret society inner circle member William Stead objected to war in South Africa, Rhodes told him: “You will support Milner in any measure that he may take short of war. I make no such limitation. I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”
The Boer War, involving unimaginable brutality—including the death of 26,000 women and children in the world’s first (British) concentration camps—ended as Rhodes and his associates intended: with the formerly separate pieces of South Africa being united under British control. Perhaps even more importantly from the perspective of the secret society, it left Alfred Milner as High Commission of the new South African Civil Service, a position from which he would cultivate a team of bright, young, largely Oxford-educated men who would go on to serve the group and its ends.
And from the end of the Boer War onward, those ends increasingly centered around the task of eliminating what Milner and the Round Table perceived as the single greatest threat to the British Empire: Germany.
DOCHERTY: So in the start it was influence—people who could influence politics, people who had the money to influence statesmen—and the dream. The dream of actually crushing Germany. This was a basic mindset of this group as it gathered together.
Germany. In 1871, the formerly separate states of modern-day Germany united into a single empire under the rule of Wilhelm I. The consolidation and industrialization of a united Germany had fundamentally changed the balance of power in Europe. By the dawn of the 20th century, the British Empire found itself dealing not with its traditional French enemies or its long-standing Russian rivals for supremacy over Europe, but the upstart German Empire. Economically, technologically, even militarily; if the trends continued, it would not be long before Germany began to rival and even surpass the British Empire.
For Alfred Milner and the group he had formed around him out of the old Rhodes Round Table society, it was obvious what had to be done: to change France and Russia from enemies into friends as a way of isolating, and, eventually, crushing Germany.
PETER HOF: Yes, well from the British perspective, Germany, after their unification in 1871, they became very strong very quickly. And over time this worried the British more and more, and they began to think that Germany represented a challenge to their world hegemony. And slowly but surely they came to the decision that Germany must be confronted just as they had come to the same decision with regard to other countries—Spain and Portugal and especially France and now Germany.
German finished goods were marginally better than those of Britain, they were building ships that were marginally better than those of Britain, and all of this. The British elite very slowly came to the decision that Germany needed to be confronted while it was still possible to do so. It might not be possible to do so if they waited too long. And so this is how the decision crystallized.
I think that Britain might possibly have accepted the German ascendance, but they had something that was close at hand, and that was the Franco-Russian Alliance. And they thought if they could hook in with that alliance, then they had the possibility of defeating Germany quickly and without too much trouble. And that is basically what they did.
But crafting an alliance with two of Britain’s biggest rivals and turning public opinion against one of its dearest continental friends was no mean feat. To do so would require nothing less than for Milner and his group to seize control of the press, the military and all the diplomatic machinery of the British Empire. And so that’s exactly what they did.
The first major coup occurred in 1899, while Milner was still in South Africa launching the Boer War. That year, the Milner Group ousted Donald Mackenzie Wallace, the director of the foreign department at The Times, and installed their man, Ignatius Valentine Chirol. Chirol, a former employee of the Foreign Office with inside access to officials there, not only helped to ensure that one of the most influential press organs of the Empire would spin all international events for the benefit of the secret society, but he helped to prepare his close personal friend, Charles Hardinge, to take on the crucial post of Ambassador to Russia in 1904, and, in 1906, the even more important post of Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office.
With Hardinge, Milner’s Group had a foot in the door at the British Foreign Office. But they needed more than just their foot in that door if they were to bring about their war with Germany. In order to finish the coup, they needed to install one of their own as Foreign Secretary. And, with the appointment of Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary in December of 1905, that’s precisely what happened.
Sir Edward Grey was a valuable and trusted ally of the Milner Group. He shared their anti-German sentiment and, in his important position of Foreign Secretary, showed no compunction at all about using secret agreements and unacknowledged alliances to further set the stage for war with Germany.
HOF: He became foreign secretary in 1905, I believe, and the foreign secretary in France was of course Delcassé. And Delcassé was very much anti-German and he was very passionate about the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine, and so he and the king hit it off very well together. And Edward Grey shared this anti-German feeling with the king—as I explained in my book how he came to have that attitude about Germany. But in any case, he had the same attitude with the king. They worked very well together. And Edward Grey very freely acknowledged the heavy role that the king played in British foreign policy and he said that this was not a problem because he and the king were in agreement on most issues and so they worked with very well together.
The pieces were already beginning to fall into place for Milner and his associates. With Edward Grey as foreign secretary, Hardinge as his unusually influential undersecretary, Rhodes’ co-conspirator Lord Esher installed as deputy governor of Windsor Castle where he had the ear of the king, and the king himself—whose unusual, hands-on approach to foreign diplomacy and whose wife’s own hatred of the Germans dovetailed perfectly with the group’s aims—the diplomatic stage was set for the formation of the Triple Entente between France, Russia and Great Britain. With France to the west and Russia to the east, England’s secret diplomacy had forged the two pincers of a German-crushing vise.
All that was needed was an event that the group could spin to its advantage to prepare the population for war against their former German allies. Time and again throughout the decade leading up to the “Great War,” the group’s influential agents in the British press tried to turn every international incident into another example of German hostility.
When the Russo-Japanese War broke out, rumours swirled in London that it was in fact the Germans that had stirred up the hostilities. The theory went that Germany—in a bid to ignite conflict between Russia and England, who had recently concluded an alliance with the Japanese—had fanned the flames of war between Russia and Japan. The truth, of course, was almost precisely the opposite. Lord Lansdowne had conducted secret negotiations with Japan before signing a formal treaty in January 1902. Having exhausted their reserves building up their military, Japan turned to Cecil Rhodes’ co-conspirator Lord Nathan Rothschild to finance the war itself. Denying the Russian navy access to the Suez Canal and high-quality coal, which they did provide to the Japanese, the British did everything they could to ensure that the Japanese would crush the Russian fleet, effectively removing their main European competitor for the Far East. The Japanese navy was even constructed in Britain, but these facts did not find their way into the Milner-controlled press.
When the Russians “accidentally” fired on British fishing trawlers in the North Sea in 1904, killing three fishermen and wounding several more, the British public was outraged. Rather than whip up the outrage, however, The Times and other mouthpieces of the secret society instead tried to paper over the incident. Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office outrageously tried to blame the incident on the Germans, kicking off a bitter press war between Britain and Germany.
The most dangerous provocations of the period centered around Morocco, when France—emboldened by secret military assurances from the British and backed up by the British press—engaged in a series of provocations, repeatedly breaking assurances to Germany that Morocco would remain free and open to German trade. At each step, Milner’s acolytes, both in government and in the British press, cheered on the French and demonized any and every response from the Germans, real or imagined.
DOCHERTY: Given that we’re living in a world of territorial aggrandizement, there was a concocted incident over Morocco and the allegation that Germany was secretly trying to take over the British/French influence on Morocco. And that literally was nonsense, but it was blown up into an incident and people were told “Prepare! You had better prepare yourself for the possibility of war because we will not be dictated to by that Kaiser person over in Berlin!”
One of the incidents —which I would need to make reference to to get the date perfectly right—referred to a threat. Well, it was portrayed as a threat. It was no more of a threat than a fly would be if it came into your room at the present moment—of a gunboat sitting off the coast of Africa. And it was purported that this was a sign that in fact Germany was going to have a deep water port and they were going to use it as a springboard to interrupt British shipping. When we researched it, Jim and I discovered that the size of that so-called gunboat was physically smaller than the king of England’s royal yacht. What? But history has portrayed this as a massive threat to the British Empire and its “masculinity,” if you like—because that’s how they saw themselves.
Ultimately, the Moroccan crises passed without warfare because, despite the best efforts of Milner and his associates, cooler heads prevailed. Likewise the Balkans descended into warfare in the years prior to 1914, but Europe as a whole didn’t descend with them. But, as we well know, the members of the Round Table in the British government, in the press, in the military, in finance, in industry, and in other positions of power and influence eventually got their wish: Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and within a month the trap of diplomatic alliances and secret military compacts that had been so carefully set was sprung. Europe was at war.
In retrospect, the machinations that led to war are a master class in how power really operates in society. The military compacts that committed Britain—and, ultimately, the world—to war had nothing to do with elected parliaments or representative democracy. When Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour resigned in 1905, deft political manipulations ensured that members of the Round Table, including Herbert Henry Asquith, Edward Grey and Richard Haldane—three men who Liberal leader Henry Campbell-Bannerman privately accused of “Milner worship”—seamlessly slid into key posts in the new Liberal government and carried on the strategy of German encirclement without missing a step.
In fact, the details of Britain’s military commitments to Russia and France, and even the negotiations themselves, were deliberately kept hidden from Members of Parliament and even members of the cabinet who were not part of the secret society. It wasn’t until November 1911, a full six years into the negotiations, that the cabinet of Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith started to learn the details of these agreements, agreements that had been repeatedly and officially denied in the press and in Parliament.
This is how the cabal functioned: efficiently, quietly and, convinced of the righteousness of their cause, completely uncaring about how they achieved their ends. It is to this clique, not to the doings of any conspiracy in Sarajevo, that we can attribute the real origins of the First World War, with the nine million dead soldiers and seven million dead civilians that lay piled in its wake.
But for this cabal, 1914 was just the start of the story. In keeping with their ultimate vision of a united Anglo-American world order, the jewel in the crown of the Milner Group was to embroil the United States in the war; to unite Britain and America in their conquest of the German foe.
Across the Atlantic, the next chapter in this hidden history was just getting underway.
Is technology making man smarter, or dumber? Whereas the Industrial Revolution and subsequent advances in microprocessing held the promise of indefinite progress for mankind, the 21st century digital networking revolution seems to have something different in store for the west.
For the first time since The Enlightenment we are witnessing a downward slope in educational standards and intellectual development across core disciplines. Meanwhile, under the guise of “tackling fake news,” global corporate monopolies are carefully controlling what we see, read, think and talk about. Every move we make is harvested as data in a 24 hour digital matrix which tracks, records and commodifies everything we do. Can the individual survive this turbulent period in human development?
Bio:
Speaker Patrick Henningsen is a media and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news website 21st Century Wire and a regular guest commentator on RT News International and host of the successful SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally on the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR), and on AM terrestrial radio in the US with ‘Patrick Henningsen LIVE’ on Independent Talk 1100 KFNX in Phoenix. His work has appeared in a number of international publications including The Guardian, UK Column, Consortium News and also on channels like Al Jazeera English, ITN, Edge Media (SKY 200 UK) and US syndicated radio show Coast to Coast AM.
In this incendiary presentation, Mark Passio explains the condition of duress under which human beings perpetually live, and the complete moral illegitimacy of that state of coercion and violence. From time to time throughout history, a small percentage of human beings – true dissidents – awakened to the realization that the condition of duress in which they were held was unacceptable to the point that they were willing to give their very lives to fight back against their oppressors and enslavers. Mark explains that when immoral people refuse to acknowledge truth and reason, and continue to unrightfully take the freedom of others, there exists a Right to employ deadly force to take back the Freedom that is our birthright as human beings. Resistance against tyranny is NOT futile. It is our moral obligation and a path to alignment with the Spiritual Laws of Creation.
This presentation, Duress, Dissidents & Deadly Force, was originally given by Mark Passio in Glendale, AZ on March 10, 2018 as part of the Truth, Mind Reality Conference.
This information is for the people who haven’t figured this out yet.
The issue of corruption at Wikipedia has been thrust into the public spotlight recently with the exposure of one of its main censorship and defamation avatars known as “Philip Cross”, an apparent pseudonymous editor-contributor used to slander and defame leading dissident voices in the West and to bolster NATO aligned propaganda talking points across thousands of Wikipedia pages. Over 133,000 edits have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years – many of which are skewed and defamatory, including entries have smeared award-winning filmmaker John Pilger, and TV presenter George Galloway, along with numerous other alternative media journalists and academics as ‘Kremlin’ or “pro-Russian” journalists and commentators. But this is only the beginning.
While Wikipedia can be a useful source of basic information on many academic subjects and for geography and general history. However, in the area of personal biographies and western foreign policy related attribution of blame (chemical weapons, ‘dictator’ death tolls in states Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, Ukraine etc) – the platform has been utterly corrupted by well-financed lobbies, PR consultants, law firms and other nefarious corporate vehicles employing persons subcontracting for government intelligence agencies, as well as various and sundry bent political operatives-for-hire.
America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges, talks with investigative journalist Helen Buyniski who exposes an editing racket resembling a type of “pay to play” policy, along with a collapse in credibility of this highly-politicized organization. Despite the obvious signs, a wave of disinformation is still being allowed by Wikipedia’s aloof co-founder Jimmy Wales (pictured above) who has knowingly allowed his online portal to transition from an egalitarian knowledge base into yet another corrupt tool of the ruling elite.
Aaron Dykes of TruthstreamMedia.com started filming this mini-documentary over six years ago, on the secret history of the Illuminati – and the real reasons why the influence of this secret order continued long after its “official” demise in 1784. Indeed, a larger global conspiracy, of continual infiltration, and a conspiracy of transforming the human mind has been underway for as long as men have begun to think themselves “free.”
Ulf Dahlström is a Swedish-born, American scientist and lecturer who worked with the late scientist, Stanley Meyer, who was killed under suspicious circumstances. Stanley Meyer became known, and perhaps controversial for inventing free energy possibilities by using water as fuel, instead of gasoline and oil. Ulf Dahlström had several fascinating years working with Meyer on his projects, which took him into some extraordinary and mind-blowing areas, of how we understand the world we are living in.
Is FREE ENERGY a possibility or even a reality? And why is it hidden from the global population?
Ulf Dahlström is direct, informational and sharp to the point, who has had a long career within the world of science and is now speaking out.
This interesting, in-depth and educational hard-talk conversation between Ulf Dahlström and Age Of Truth TV presenter Lucas Alexander, took place at the Open Mind Conference in Audonicon, Skanderborg, Denmark on September 22, 2013.
At AV8.1 Dr. Graham Downing built upon his outstanding AV8 presentation to articulate his concerns regarding the direction and speed of technological development … with particular focus on the negative impact of unfettered Artificial Intelligence.
Dr. Downing emphasises that it is essential to examine the available data and know what we are walking into … BEFORE it’s too late!
Dr. Bergman explains how all vaccines are now a liability free product as the result of the development of the vaccine court. This means that if you get injured by a vaccine, you will end up in their court under the rules of the vaccine manufacturers. Please, let’s stop this insanity!
COMMUNITY ACTIVSIM vs The CORPORATOCRACY :
Never give up … ultimately, there’s way more of US, than there is of THEM!
Ian R Crane is a former oilfield executive …. who for the past SIX YEARS has been focused primarily on his Fracking Awareness Campaign. The UK anti-fracking community has contributed significantly to the fact that the Country has remained ‘Frack Free’ since spring 2011! However, this quest has not been without much drama and personal cost, with one of the Fracking Companies, Rathlin Energy, pursuing Ian through the Bankruptcy Courts for over two years!
In the spring of 2015, Ian released his first documentary, ‘Voices from the Gasfields‘, which portrays the experiences of landowners who now live in the heart of the Gasfields of Southern Queensland, Australia.
Most people have heard of the “mind/body connection” and are aware that emotions affect the way people act. However, few can describe how that works. What is relatively new is our understanding that emotions are stored in and around the body as magnetic fields. Not only do these magnetic fields cause the biochemical effects noted above, but they also block the flow of voltage in the associated muscle battery packs that provide the voltage necessary for organs to function and repair themselves. He will discuss the human body’s battery packs, wiring system, and the physics of how our electronic systems are affected by these emotions. In addition, he will discuss how other magnetic fields and scalar energy can be used to erase these emotions, leaving behind only memories that do not disrupt our health and physiology.
Dr. Jerry Tennant is board certified in ophthalmology and ophthalmic plastic surgery (residency, Harvard Medical School and Southwestern Medical School.) He was the director of ophthalmic plastic surgery clinic at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and practiced from 1965 to 1995. He did much of the FDA study for the VISX Excimer laser and performed approximately 1000 surgeries in the United States and Europe. In addition, Dr. Tennant was the founder/director of the Dallas Eye Institute and one of the first surgeons in the US to place intraocular lenses in eyes after cataract surgery and taught these techniques around the world. He holds patents for medical devices including intraocular lenses and several surgical instruments. While licensed in Arizona by the Board of Homeopathic and Alternative Medicine, Dr. Tennant is currently the Director of the Tennant Institute for Integrative Medicine.
If you see a CC with this video, it means that subtitles are available. To find out which ones, click on the Gear Icon in the lower right area of the video box and click on “subtitles” in the drop-down box. Then click on the subtitle that you would like.
At the demise of empire, City of London financial interests created a web of secrecy jurisdictions that captured wealth from across the globe and hid it in a web of offshore islands. Today, up to half of global offshore wealth is hidden in British jurisdictions and Britain and its dependencies are the largest global players in the world of international finance.
Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began. This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.
TRANSCRIPT:
When we remember the events of 9/11, we are often invited to reflect on how the attack came out of the clear, blue sky. Until the terror began to unfold in real time on everyone’s television screen, it was just another beautiful, blue sky day, a perfect day for aviation.
CNN ANCHOR: It is 8 AM in Salisbury, North Carolina, 7:00 a.m. in Chicago, 5:00 a.m. in Calaveras County, California, where the news is being made on this Tuesday, September 11th.
CNN ANCHOR 2: From CNN…
MATT LAUER: Anyway, that’s all coming up. 8:01 let’s get to the top news stories of the morning. For that we turn to Anne Curry.
ANN CURRY: Because now we have a camera. Katy, Matt and Al, thank you so much this morning. Good morning, everybody, again.
SARAH FERGUSON: …but isn’t in America, in politics, isn’t spinning…What is spinning, Charlie?
CHARLIE GIBSON: Well, spinning is getting out your point of view, trying to put your interpretation on something.
FERGUSON: So do you think there is a lot of spinning done in politics…
FOX ANCHOR: …Miss America pageant, but this year things are different. Contestants will be quizzed on current events, US history and government. 10 of the 51 contestants got a preview. Among the questions: Naming the current vice president, and knowing what happened December 7th, 1941. Two contestants didn’t know Dick Cheney was the vice president and four missed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
EARLY SHOW: Miles and miles of sunshine. Miles Davis. Going to put Miles out there today. Nice as it could be across the Northeast. Rough seas still from from the chop from that hurricane, but other than that it’s kind of quiet around the country. We like quiet. It’s quiet. It’s too quiet.
But that was merely the public’s impression of the events from ground level. Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began.
This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.
PART ONE – WAR GAMES
It only stands to reason that government employees, armed forces and first responders spend a considerable amount of time every year training to respond to crises. A major, catastrophic event may only happen once in a lifetime, but if and when it does occur, the appropriate personnel need to know how to respond.
Not all military exercises and government drills are the same, however. These training events can range all the way from computer simulations and war games—where no personnel are deployed and no physical resources are committed—to live field exercises where real people use real equipment and even real munitions to practice responding to real-world emergencies or simulate real warfare. And as these drills and exercises move from abstract models to real-life exercises, the line between reality and simulation can become blurry.
What does it mean, then, when a simulation of an emergency takes place at the exact same place and time as that real emergency is happening in real life?
PETER POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company—bearing in mind I’m now in the private sector—and we sat everybody down in the City. A thousand people involved in the whole organization, but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on that underground and mainline station so we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real.
[. . . ]
INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
In the hours after the July 7th, 2005 bombings in London, Peter Power gave a series of interviews to various outlets confirming that he had been running an exercise at the exact time of the attack. That exercise envisioned bombs going off at Liverpool Street, King’s Cross, and Russell Square at exactly the same time as real bombs were going off at those very locations.
PETER POWER: At half past 9 this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
What are we to make of this? Is this just a remarkable coincidence? Proof of the the keen insight of advisors like Peter Power in correctly predicting the locations and times of likely terror attacks? Or something altogether different? And, if this was set up by some intelligence agency or someone with advance knowledge of the real attack, what would be the point? Why would they bother to schedule a drill “rehearsing the event” at the same time as the event itself?
Just as there are various kinds of drills, war games and exercises, so, too, are there different ways that such simulations could be used to help facilitate an actual event. A drill could be used to distract security services and hinder responses, for example, thus helping an attack to succeed. Or the exercise could act as an alibi in case the plot is discovered before it can take place. Or, in an even more chilling scenario, a war game or training event could be used to recruit patsies who, believing they are only taking part in an exercise, unwittingly move people or equipment into place for a real attack.
KIMMY: Yes! I am the king! Numero uno, baby. Mmmm mmmm.
(The Gunmen walk over to Kimmy.)
BYERS: Find something?
KIMMY: Yep. I wound up in some government think-tank’s upload directory. Here’s your scenarios, ladies.
BYERS: It’s in clear. Counter-terrorism scenarios. War games developed for the Defense Department.
FROHIKE: What’s Scenario 12-D?
(Kimmy clicks on the file. A dialog box on the screen opens.)
FILE INFO
scenario_12D.txt
Domestic Airline In-Flight Terrorist Act
LANGLY: Airline terrorism? That doesn’t make sense. Your father was murdered over a war game?
Incredibly, the plot of the pilot episode of “The Lone Gunmen,” a spin-off of the popular X-Files television program, aired in March 2001, depicted a scenario in which a group of government insiders piggy-backed on a military war game involving a hijacked airplane to remote control a civilian passenger jet into the World Trade Center.
BYERS SNR: What the hell are you doing? Why can’t you stay out of this. Leave me buried.
BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?
(BYERS SNR doesn’t respond.)
BYERS: We know it’s a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.
BYERS SNR: Because it’s no longer a game.
BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?
BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.
BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You’re saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?
BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction …
BYERS: For what possible gain?
BYERS SNR: The Cold War’s over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market’s flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you’ll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamoring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.
But as outlandish as this idea seems to those not immersed in military history or strategy, the idea of a war game “going live” is not limited to the world of fiction. In fact, it is a real and openly-acknowledged secret among military planners that such exercises can be used as an operational cover for a real attack. Reflecting on lessons learned from his tenure as Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, Casper Weinberger observed that “the difference between a realistic exercise or maneuver and what could be preparations for an attack, that line is sometimes quite blurred.”
And Weinberger should know. It was under his watch that a “fictional” war game scenario brought the world to the brink of a very real global thermonuclear war.
In 1983, at the height of Cold War tensions over the Reagan Administration’s moves to increase the US nuclear arsenal and his national security directive calling for the ability to win a nuclear war, NATO decided to simulate a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in an exercise dubbed “Able Archer 83.” As recently declassified documents show, the exercise was unprecedented in its scale and scope, even involving a very real radio-silent air lift of 19,000 US troops to Europe. So realistic was the build up of forces and the preparations for nuclear strikes during these “war games” that, as we now know from these documents kept hidden from the public for 30 years, Able Archer 83 very nearly caused a real nuclear exchange.
But these concerns about war games going live did not end with the break up of the Soviet Union. On September 10, 2001, the Russian Air Force began a week-long training exercise over the North Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. The exercise simulated a Russian bombing attack in response to NATO aggression. On September 9, 2001, NORAD announced they would be deploying additional fighter aircraft to Forward Operating Locations in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor the exercise and “ensure that our air sovereignty is maintained.” The Russians called off their war game when the 9/11 attacks began to unfold.
Military planners know that simulations and war games can be used as cover for real attacks. But what about 9/11? Were there any exercises, simulations or drills that had a bearing on what was happening on that fateful day?
PART TWO – PREPARATIONS
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration’s mantra became that no one could have imagined such an attack before it took place.
REPORTER: Why shouldn’t this be seen as an intelligence failure, that you were unable to predict something happening here?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Steve, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.
DONALD RUMSFELD: First, I must say, I know of no intelligence during the roughly six plus months leading up to September 11 th that indicated terrorists intended to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into the Pentagon or the World Trade Towers. If we had had such information, we could have acted on it.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
But, like everything else the Bush Administration told the public about 9/11, this, too, was a lie. Not only had government officials “envisioned flying airplanes into buildings” or “using an airplane as a missile,” but multiple agencies trained for just such an event prior to 9/11. In fact, as General Richard Myers—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005—went on to tell the 9/11 Commission, this precise scenario of a hijacked jet being flown into a high value target was drilled by NORAD not once or twice but five separate times in the run-up to September 11th.
On November 6th, 1999, they simulated an event in which terrorists hijacked a passenger jet flying out of JFK with the intention of crashing it into the United Nations building in New York.
On June 5th, 2000, they simulated two hijackings, one in which the terrorists intended to fly the plane into the Statue of Liberty, and the other in which the intended target was the White House.
An October 16th, 2000, NORAD drill saw a hijacker once again targeting the UN building, as did a nearly identical exercise on October 23rd of that year.
One of NORAD’s pre-9/11 hijack drills even saw the World Trade Center itself become the intended target.
Other exercises involved not just hijacked jets as weapons, but tested NORAD’s response to simultaneous hijackings being used in a coordinated attack on American airspace.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn’t it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?
GEN. MCKINLEY: Colonel Scott, do you have any data on that? I’m not aware of that, sir. I was not present at the time.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: That was Operation Amalgam Virgo.
Amalgam Virgo is an annual NORAD field training exercise, meaning that real aircraft are deployed and actual personnel are used to “simulate” real-life situations. The planning document for Amalgam Virgo 01, which took place in June 2001, featured a picture of Osama Bin Laden surrounded by airplanes. Amalgam Virgo 02, which was already in the planning stages on 9/11 and actually took place in June 2002, involved a simulated hijacking of a real Delta Airlines 757 by “military personnel acting as civilian passengers” and ran through multiple scenarios for stopping the plane from reaching its target, including a shoot down.
But as uncanny as these similarities are to real life events, declassified documents from the 9/11 Commission archive show that many other types of hijack scenarios were practiced in the three years before September 11th. These documents prove that many of the lies told about the “confused” response to the 9/11 attacks are just that: lies.
We have long been told, for instance, that NORAD wasn’t set up to deal with a domestic hijacking threat because the agency was solely focused on outward threats.
RICHARD MYERS: It’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward. Those were the orders that NORAD had and has had for — ever since the end of the Soviet Union when we had at that time I think it was 26 alert sites around the United States and we’d gone down to seven.
But time after time between 1999 and 2001, NORAD simulated so-called “inside-inside” events, where domestic airliners bound for domestic destinations were hijacked en route. General Myers simply lied when he said that NORAD’s defenses were only directed toward outside threats. As these documents show, NORAD was actively engaged in modeling domestic terror threats, not only domestic civilian airliner hijackings but even one scenario, dubbed “Fertile Rice,” in which Osama bin Laden directed an attack on Washington using a drone aircraft laden with explosives.
And these were not the only pre-9/11 “training” events that bore a striking resemblance to the actual attacks. The specific scenario of a plane crashing into the Pentagon was drilled not just once or twice, but at least three separate times in the year prior to September 11th.
In October 2000, a Pentagon mass casualty exercise, or “MASCAL,” envisioned a scenario in which a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. Army medics, the Arlington Fire Department and other emergency responders participated in the drill.
In May 2001, another Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise tested responses to a passenger jet crashing into the Pentagon’s courtyard. This time, the tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic participated in the training. Lieutenant Colonel John Felicio, deputy commander for administration of the DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, later remarked: “You know, it was kind of eerie. The scenario we had for these MASCALS was very similar to what actually happened. Our scenario for both MASCALS was a plane flying into the Pentagon courtyard.”
Then, in August 2001, just one month before 9/11, yet another Pentagon mass casualty exercise practiced building evacuation. As General Lance Lord, Commander of Air Force Space Command, later noted: “Purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building.”
“Purely a coincidence.” Time after time after time after time after time in the months leading up to the attacks, military personnel and first responders were trained to respond to the very events that the public is asked to believe actually took place on the day of 9/11. Some of these training exercises even involved real aircraft being “pretend” hijacked by real military personnel “acting as civilian passengers.”
Purely a coincidence.
As we can see, the idea that no one could have predicted the attacks of September 11th is not just a lie, but an absurd lie. In fact, the sheer number of times those very scenarios were exercised before they took place by itself raises the question of what these war game planners knew about what was set to take place that day.
But as remarkable as all of these drills and exercises are, more remarkable still are the similarities between the events of 9/11 and the war games that we now know were taking place that very morning.
PART THREE – TRAINING DAY
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawns temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States. A perfect day for aviation.
Meanwhile, all around the country, military personnel, first responders and government officials prepare for one of the busiest days of “simulated” terror in history.
In New York City, preparations continue for “Operation Tripod,” an exercise run by the New York City Office of Emergency Management involving hundreds of personnel from FEMA and other disaster response agencies. The exercise simulates a bioterrorist attack on New York, and on the morning of September 11th equipment is already in place at Pier 92—just four miles north-northwest of the Twin Towers—to treat the “victims” of this pretend attack.
RUDY GIULIANI: … on September 12th, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people here from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State Emergency Management Office and they were getting ready for a drill for a bio-chemical attack. So that was going to be the place they were going to have the drill, the equipment was already there.
And on the 97th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, a team of technology consultants who have flown in from California for the occasion are running an emergency drill in the offices of Fiduciary Trust.
Meanwhile in Washington, members of the 12th Aviation Battalion, in charge of “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies” are two hours away from their base, participating in their annual weapons training.
12 miles south of the Pentagon, Fort Belvoir begins a garrison control exercise drilling the base on its response to a simulated terrorist attack.
Firefighters at Fort Myer, just 1.5 miles from the Pentagon, are sitting down for an “aircraft crash refresher class.”
Matthew Rosenberg—an Army medic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic—sits down in Corridor 8 of the Pentagon to “study a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.”
And in Chantilly, Virginia—just four miles from the runway of Dulles Airport—the military and CIA personnel who staff the National Reconaissance Office are beginning an exercise in which a plane crashes into their building.
Members of the Joint Special Operations Command (the US military’s “top counterterrorism unit”) are in Hungary preparing for “Jackal Cave,” a highly-classified joint readiness exercise.
Fighter pilots deployed to monitor the Russian Air Force’s training exercise in the Arctic are readying themselves for a day of maneuvers in Alaska and Northern Canada.
And at NORAD’s combat operations center at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado, military commanders are preparing for one of the busiest days of war games and exercises in the history of the United States.
BARRIE ZWICKER: Michael Ruppert is standing by at his office in Sherman Oaks, California. Michael, thanks for this. What is the reason for the failure of US military jets to show up in a timely fashion on 9/11?
MICHAEL RUPPERT: Well, the simple fact is, Barrie, that they didn’t know where to go. The reason that they didn’t know where to go was because a number of conflicting and overlapping war game exercises were taking place, one of which, Northern Vigilance, had pulled a significant number of North American fighter aircraft into Canada and western Alaska and and northern Alaska in a mock Cold War hijack exercise. There was another drill, Vigilant Guardian, which was a hijack exercise, a command post exercise, but it involved the insertion of false radar blips on to radar screens in the NorthEast Air Defense Sector. In addition we have a confirmation thanks to General Richard Myers who was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who told Richard Clarke, as reported in Clarke’s book, that there was another exercise, Vigilant Warrior, which was, in fact, according to a NORAD source a live fly hijack drill being conducted at the same time.
With only eight available fighter aircraft, and they have to be dispatched in pairs, they were dealing with as many as 22 possible hijacks on the day of 9/11 and they couldn’t separate the war game exercises from the actual hijacks.
Yes, on the morning of September 11, 2001, the stage was perfectly set for an unprecedented day of simulated terror throughout the northeastern United States.
And then it all happened for real.
PART FOUR – THIS IS NOT AN EXERCISE
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
NASYPANY: This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world. And we’re trying to confirm this. Okay. Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, J.F.K. area, if you can. Make sure that the F.A.A. clears it— your route all the way through. Do what we gotta do, okay? Let’s press with this. It looks like this guy could have hit the World Trade Center.
There are many ways to describe the FAA, DoD and NORAD response to the events of 9/11. But given that, according to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, not a single fighter jet was able to intercept a single hijacked airliner between the first hijacking report at 8:20 AM and Flight 93’s downing nearly two hours later at 10:03 AM, the claim that the response to these events was actually enhanced by the war games and exercises taking place that morning is downright absurd.
REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: The question was we had four war games going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not activities of the four war games going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.
GEN. RICHARD MYERS: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response. In fact, General Eberhart, who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, I believe—I believe—he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn’t have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility.
MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, “Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to — we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out.” NEADS says, “Is this real world or an exercise?”
My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, “No, there’s no possibility that this is real world; we’re engaged in an exercise,” and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?
GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews — they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.
The situation that you’re referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds — 30 seconds.
These lies have been carefully crafted over years and presented in such densely-packed soundbites that it is difficult to deconstruct them all.
General Myers’ assertion that it was not NORAD but the FAA that had the responsibility to respond to the attacks that morning is one such lie. In reality, NORAD is specifically tasked with dealing with such events itself, not waiting passively for FAA orders. NORAD’s own regulations for dealing with hijacked jets specifically state that “FAA Authorization for Interceptor Operations is not used for intercept and airborne surveillance of hijacked aircraft within the [continental United States].”
And General Eberhart’s assertion that the confusion over whether the events that were unfolding were real world events or merely exercises “cost us 30 seconds” is belied by the actual audio recordings of the FAA and NORAD response that morning. Time and time again throughout the entire morning, air traffic controllers and military operators are forced to clarify that the events being reported are not part of an exercise.
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
NASYPANY: Fourteen forty three, look for it, right there, ok, mode three, fourteen forty three, last known. No, this is real world. Ok, we’re in the high chair.
This persistent confusion over the reality of what was happening that day is hardly surprising. Although the exact details are still shrouded under a cloud of official secrecy, on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was in the middle of a week-long war game that “coincidentally” included simulated hijackings of passenger jets.
“Vigilant Guardian” is an annual command post exercise involving all levels of NORAD command. Vigilant Guardian 01 was a week-long war game described as a “simulated air war,” and, just two days before 9/11, it had involved a simulated terrorist hijacking of a civilian passenger jet by terrorists intending to blow the plane up with explosives over New York City. Even more remarkably, on the very morning of September 11th, they were planning to simulate another passenger jet hijacking just one hour after the attacks began to unfold.
In 2006, Vanity Fair reporter Michael Bronner was the first journalist given access to the tapes of NORAD operations that morning. In his subsequent article on the subject, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes,” Bronner talked to Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Nasypany, the mission-crew commander on the “ops” floor at the Northeast Air Defense Sector on the morning of 9/11.
“When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was ‘Somebody started the exercise early,’” Nasypany later told me. The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a “traditional” simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. “I actually said out loud, ‘The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour,’” Nasypany recalled.
As a command post exercise, Vigilant Guardian was not conducted with real airplanes but what’s known as “sim over live,” where simulated aircraft are injected into NORAD’s air traffic system. Although the official narrative holds that the simulated injects were cleared from NORAD’s radars as soon as they appeared, thus causing no confusion, the actual NORAD tapes tell a different story.
At 9:04 AM, directly after Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, two officers monitoring the events at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) can be heard to refer to the events as potential exercise “inputs.”
09:04:50
SPEAKER 1: Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV?
SPEAKER 2: Yes.
SPEAKER 1: Jesus …
SPEAKER 2: And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …
SPEAKER 1: Two planes?…
SPEAKER 2: Get the fuck out …
SPEAKER 1: I think this is a damn input, to be honest.
Remarkably, at 9:30 AM, a full hour and ten minutes into the attacks, simulated aircraft were still being injected into the radar screens at NEADS. One frustrated staff member directing the response on the NEADS operations floor had to order his coworkers to “turn their sim switches off,” stopping the fake simulations from confusing the radar operators.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You know what, let’s get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let’s get rid of that crap.
Even worse, at the same time as these false inputs were distracting the radar operators, real military aircraft that are taking part in the live-fly exercises that day are further complicating the response to the attacks.
MALE SPEAKER: Boston Center T.M.U., yeah, we’ve got a question for you.
BACKGROUND MALE: Yes, sir.
MALE SPEAKER 1: We’re wondering if we should tell them to return to Base if they’re just on training missions, or what you guys—
BACKGROUND MALE: No, no. They’re actually on the active air per the DO out there.
BACKGROUND MALE: Is this guy launched (inaudible)?
BACKGROUND MALE: Everybody’s who’s up, you want them up?
BACKGROUND MALE: Yes, we did send the ones home that were on the training mission.
BACKGROUND MALE: OK.
BACKGROUND MALE: They are sent home.
(Simultaneous background conversations)
BACKGROUND MALE: But the Pantas are out there from Otis.
MALE SPEAKER: Right. I understand that. I’m talking about— I think there’s somebody training up in the Falcon Acts area right now.
BACKGROUND MALE: No.
BACKGROUND MALE: Falcon. Stand by. Let me—
MALE SPEAKER: Just in general anybody that’s training.
BACKGROUND MALE: Anybody in training, send them home? Missions are Falcon send them home?
BACKGROUND MALE: Right.
BACKGROUND MALE: Yeah, go ahead and send them home.
Even more incredibly, false radar injects continued to show up on radar screens at NORAD’s Operations Center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, at 10:12 AM, a full nine minutes after the attacks had ended.
CAPT. BRIAN NAGEL: Sim…or, sorry, northeast weapons.
CAPT. TAYLOR: Hello, this is Captain Taylor calling from Cheyenne Mountain test control.
NAGEL: Yes.
TAYLOR: What we need you to do right now is to terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain.
NAGEL: Yes. Can you call 6180 extension for that, please?
In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence that the exercises taking place that morning were a persistent source of distraction that significantly complicated response efforts, the retort of the 9/11 Commission and its proponents that these false radar blips were a minor issue that “at most cost us 30 seconds” rings exceedingly hollow.
But that official story becomes even more implausible when it is learned that air traffic controllers and military personnel were not responding to four, clearly reported hijacked aircraft, as the public now imagines it, but as many as 29 potential hijackings.
MAJ. GEN. LARRY ARNOLD: We were in the process of launching aircraft all over the country during that timeframe. We had multiple aircraft called hijacked all over the country.
GEN. MYERS: In fact, as General Arnold said, we fought many phantoms that day. […] We got many aircraft calls inbound that morning that turned out to be phantoms.
United Airlines Flight 177, which was inexplicably reported as hijacked at 9:25 AM despite still being on the ground at Boston’s Logan International Airport.
Delta 1989, a 767 flying from Boston to Los Angeles that was repeatedly identified as suspicious on the morning of 9/11 and ordered to land at a secure, remote area of Cleveland Hopkins Airport, where the pilot signalled “all clear” to the SWAT team outside the plane with blood running down his face.
Continental Airlines Flight 321, which had inexplicably “squawked” the hijack code from the plane’s transponder three times before being safely brought down in Peoria.
And literally dozens of other suspicious aircraft, inexplicable hijack indicators, false reports of planes that “never existed,” and other bizarre incidents, some of which have still never been explained to the public to this day.
But the most baffling of all of these reports involved American Airlines Flight 11, the Boeing 767 en route from Boston to Los Angeles that, according to the official government conspiracy theory, was hijacked by Mohamed Atta and flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Incredibly, air traffic controllers and military fighter jets spent much of the crucial time in the midst of the 9/11 attacks dealing with a completely false report that Flight 11 had not crashed into the World Trade Center at all, but was instead still airborn and heading towards Washington.
COLIN SCOGGINS: Scoggins, (FAA) military (operations specialist), Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air and it’s on its way towards — heading towards Washington.
NEADS TECHNICIAN: American 11 is still in the air—
SCOGGINS: Yes.
NEADS: —on its way towards Washington?
SCOGGINS: It was another aircraft that hit the tower. That’s the latest report we have.
NEADS: Okay.
SCOGGINS: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over either New Jersey or somewhere further south.
NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t a hijack at all, then, right?
This completely false report, phoned in by FAA military operations specialist Colin Scoggins, further confused the already overwhelmed NEADS technicians. In response, NEADS Mission Crew Commander Kevin Nasypany scrambled some of the only fighters in the entire defense sector to chase after this phantom flight.
09:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.
So confusing was this series of events that even years later at the 9/11 Commission hearings, both commissioners and military commanders struggled to even communicate about the problem itself, let alone determine how such a false report persisted for so long.
MR. KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick.
MS. GORELICK: A couple of follow-up questions. First, for General Arnold, you testified before us before that the jets were scrambled in response to Flight 93, not American 11, and when you were asked about—
GEN. ARNOLD: I was wrong. I was wrong.
MS. GORELICK: Yeah. But—but the question about that is, and I want to be fair to you and give you an opportunity to respond, you said that the reason that you were wrong was that you hadn’t had an opportunity to listen to the tapes, or the tapes were not accessible. But, I mean, we have—I’m just holding four of them — different headquarters and CONR logs that are—that clearly reflect that the scrambling was done in response to this phantom American 11, which didn’t exist anymore. And it was responsibility, as I recall, to do the after-action report, or to lead it, or to be in part responsible for it. Did you not look at the logs in that process?
GEN. ARNOLD: Well, you refer to an after-action report that I was—that we didn’t do. I mean, I don’t recall doing an after- action report—
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Why did no one mention the false report received from FAA that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year? And why was there no report to us that contrary to the statements made at the time, that there had been no notification to NORAD that Flight 77 was a hijack?
GEN. LARRY ARNOLD: Well, the first part of your question—Mr. Commissioner, first of all, I would like to say that a lot of the information that you have found out in your study of this of this 9/11, the things that happened on that day, helped us reconstruct what was going on.
And if you’re talking about the American 11, in particular, the call of American 11, is that what you are referring to?
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Yes.
GEN. ARNOLD: The American 11, that was—call after it had impacted, is that what you’re referring to?
MR. BEN-VENISTE: No. I’m talking about the fact that there was miscommunication that Flight 11 was still heading south instead of having impacted—
GEN. ARNOLD: That’s what I’m referring to. That’s correct.
[…]
MR. BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south in fact skewed the whole reporting of 9/11, it skewed the official Air Force report, which is contained in a book called “The Air War Over America,” which does not contain any information about the fact that you were following, or thinking of a continuation of Flight 11, and that you had not received notification that Flight 77 had been hijacked?
GEN. ARNOLD: Well, as I recall, first of all, I didn’t know the call signs of the airplanes when these things happened. When the call came that American 11 was possible hijacked aircraft, that aircraft just led me to come to the conclusion that there were other aircraft in the system that were a threat to the United States.
PHILIP ZELIKOW: In their testimony, and in other public statements, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77 and/or United 93. These statements were incorrect as well. The report of American 11 heading south as the cause of the Langley scramble is reflected not just in taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations in FAA centers, on chat logs compiled at NEADS, continental region headquarters, and NORAD, and in other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11, is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by FAA or DOD. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley fighters has been described as a response to the reported hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two. This inaccurate account created the appearance that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.
False radar inputs. Military aircraft participating in exercises in the middle of a crisis. Civilian aircraft squawking false hijack reports. Fighter jets chasing phantom planes.
Which of these reports were merely the “fog of war” so often referred to by promoters of the official 9/11 story, and which were part of the exercise themselves? Were there field exercises of hijackings taking place that morning that were then mistaken for the real thing? What part did these war games and exercises play in hampering the response of the many military officers who had spent their whole careers training to protect American airspace?
Did the war games help the perpetrators of 9/11 in their attack?
The answers to these questions, like so many other questions about the events of September 11th, remain shrouded under a veil of official government secrecy.
PART FIVE: BEYOND COINCIDENCE
“Purely a coincidence.”
According to the official story of 9/11 itself, we are told that simulated hijackings were taking place at the same time as real-life hijackings. That an airplane-into-building drill was occurring at the same time as airplanes were flying into buildings. That false radar blips and fake hijack reports were competing for the military’s attention with real-world radar blips and hijack reports. And throughout it all, technicians, operators, military personnel and air traffic controllers were constantly seeking reassurance that what they were seeing was not part of an exercise.
Purely a coincidence? Or part of a pre-meditated plan?
And if this unprecedented tangle of exercises, drills and simulations was part of a pre-meditated plan, what was that plan? What would be the point of simulating the attacks even as the attacks themselves were taking place?
MICHAEL RUPPERT: For me, the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in and management of the attacks was found in a number of undisputed yet virtually unaddressed war games that I have shown were being conducted, coordinated, and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September the 11th.
The names of those wargames are known to include: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod. There is a possibility that Northern Guardian is a duplicate name, but the remaining exercises are indisputably separate events with different objectives. All have been reported by major press organizations relying on undisputed quotes from participating military and FAA personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All, except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II, had to do with hijacked airliners inside the continental United States, specifically within the northeast air defense sector or NEADS, where all four 9/11 hijackings occurred.
According to a clear record, some of these exercises involve commercial airline hijackings. In some cases, false blips or “injects” were deliberately inserted into FAA and military radar screens, and they were present during at least the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place.
Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance, had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US just before 9/11 into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were live-fly exercises, where actual aircraft—likely flown by remote control—were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began.
The fact that these exercises have never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press or publicly by Congress—or at least publicly in any detail whatsoever by this so-called “independent” 911 Commission—made me think that they might be the holy grail of 9/11. And that’s exactly what they turned out to be.
Only one war game exercise, Vigilant Guardian, was mentioned in a footnote to the Kean Commission report, and then it was deliberately mislabeled as an exercise intended to intercept Russian bombers instead of a hijack exercise in the northeast sector. Even then a deliberate lie was told to the American people as NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart testified to the Commission that the exercise actually expedited US Air Force response during the attacks.
Before the Commission’s final hearing I undertook a direct investigation in an attempt to learn more details about each of the exercises and specifically who was controlling them or had planned them to take place on September the 11th, where it’s abundantly clear based upon the record of statements made by the US Air Force and FAA personnel that the games had effectively paralyzed fighter response during the attacks.
The exercises taking place on 9/11 could only be to the benefit of the attackers. No stand down order would have kept any dedicated fighter pilot worth his salt grounded during the only attack on his country’s air space in his lifetime. But if those fighter pilots and their commanders had no idea what was real and what was fake, what was an actual threat and what was just a phantom blip, then their response could be effectively contained.
And it was. The utter “failure” of the air response that morning is proof of that.
But if the simulations and war games on the morning of 9/11 were part of a pre-meditated plan on the part of the attackers, then the obvious question is who were the attackers? Are we to believe that the dastardly Al Qaeda masterminds not only perpetrated the simultaneous hijacking of four civilian airliners, turning off the plane’s transponders and putting them through a series of maneuvers that even advanced pilots could not replicate to hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy, but also penetrated the command structure of the US military and NORAD itself to direct the planning and scheduling of simultaneous war games mirroring their own plot to confuse the air response to the attacks?
Because if that sounds like outlandish comic book fantasy, then there is only one other possible conclusion: That members of the National Command Authority, the US military and NORAD in a position to plan and schedule such exercises were the attackers themselves.
BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?
(BYERS SNR doesn’t respond.)
BYERS: We know it’s a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.
BYERS SNR: Because it’s no longer a game.
BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?
BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.
BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You’re saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?
BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction …
BYERS: For what possible gain?
BYERS SNR: The Cold War’s over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market’s flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you’ll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamoring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.
But that’s “just fiction” and the fact that it all happened in real life a few months later is just another “pure coincidence.”
The truth of what happened that morning would be remarkably easy to come to if those involved in the planning and execution of the day’s training events were to open the records and allow independent examination of the precise situations that were being trained that day, how those scenarios were arrived at, who planned them, who was in charge of them, what radar injects and false reports and live-fly simulations were taking place, how these exercise inputs were relayed to technicians and air traffic controllers, and what steps were taken at what times to allow those events to continue even as the attacks they were supposed to be simulating were actually happening in real life.
But we shouldn’t expect the guilty parties to indict themselves, and so it is no surprise at all that the official government investigation into 9/11 studiously avoided facing any of these issues head on.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Ask about the war games that were planned for 9-11.
MR. KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick.
MS. GORELICK: Um.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Tell us about the 9-11 war games.
MS. GORELICK: Could you please be quiet, we only have a few minutes with General Myers, and I would like to ask a question.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Tell us about the war games.
MS. GORELICK: I’m sorry.
MR. KEAN: I would ask please for the people in the audience to be quiet if you want to stay here.
So what does it mean when a simulation of a catastrophic and catalyzing event takes place at the exact same place and time as that event is happening in real life?
This is one of the many crucial questions of 9/11 that have been swept under the rug over the past 17 years. But it is not a rhetorical question. It is a very real question with a very real answer. And until that question is answered, we will never find justice for the victims of 9/11.
FOX: I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky has been tracking and analyzing the trajectory of U.S. military planning for the last two decades and has been at the forefront of dissecting the propaganda describing these projects as ‘self defense’ or a ‘humanitarian intervention.’
In June of 2018 he delivered a speech to the Regina Peace Council outlining his research and appealing for the re-invigoration of an anti-war movement that would confront what he considers to be a hegemonic project of world conquest, orchestrated by the U.S. and its Western allies.
“We’re dealing with a diabolical agenda where the United States is intervening under the banner of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ or ‘Global War on Terrorism.’ In other words it is providing a legitimacy to a war of aggression, or a sequence of wars of aggression. And the public is led to believe somehow that these are humanitarian undertakings.”
The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1, 1996 by EIR’s bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled “A Profile of Mega-Speculator George Soros.” Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson.
Time magazine has characterized financier George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood,” who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of eastern Europe and Russia. It claimed that Soros makes huge financial gains by speculating against western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society.”
The Time statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich western countries, and uses his profits to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy.”
His goal is to loot wherever and however he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of “hit-and-run capitalism.”
As we shall see, what Soros means by “open,” is a society that allows him and his financial predator friends to loot the resources and precious assets of former Warsaw Pact economies. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs or Sweden’s Anders Aslund and their economic shock therapy into these economies, Soros lays the groundwork for buying up the assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices.
The man who broke the Bank of England?
An examination of Soros’s secretive financial network is vital to understand the true dimension of the “Soros problem” in eastern Europe and other nations.
Following the crisis of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of September 1992, when the Bank of England was forced to abandon efforts to stabilize the pound sterling, a little-known financial figure emerged from the shadows, to boast that he had personally made over $1 billion in speculation against the British pound.
The speculator was the Hungarian-born George Soros, who spent the war in Hungary under false papers working for the Nazi government, identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow Jews. Soros left Hungary after the war, and established American citizenship after some years in London. Today, Soros is based in New York, but that tells little, if anything, of who and what he is.
Following his impressive claims to possession of a “Midas touch,” Soros has let his name be publicly used in a blatant attempt to influence world financial markets — an out-of-character act for most financial investors, who prefer to take advantage of situations not yet discovered by rivals, and keep them secret. Soros the financier is as much a political animal, as a financial speculator.
Soros proclaimed in March 1993, with great publicity, that the price of gold was about to rise sharply; he said that he had just gotten “inside information” that China was about to buy huge sums of gold for its booming economy.
Soros was able to trigger a rush into buying gold, which caused prices to rise more than 20% over four months, to the highest level since 1991. Typically for Soros, once the fools rushed in to push prices higher, Soros and his friend Sir James Goldsmith secretly began selling their gold at a huge profit.
Then, in early June 1993, Soros proclaimed his intent to force a sell-off in German government bonds in favor of the French, in an open letter to London Times Financial Editor Anatole Kaletsky, in which Soros proclaimed, “Down with the D-Mark!”
Soros has at various times attacked the currencies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mexico, coming into newly opened financial markets which have little experience with foreign investors, let alone ones with large funds like Soros.
Soros begins buying stocks or bonds in the local market, leading others to naively suppose that he knows something they do not. As with gold, when the smaller investors begin to follow Soros, driving prices of stocks or whatever higher, Soros begins to sell to the eager new buyers, cashing in his 40% or 100% profits, then exiting the market, and often, the entire country, to seek another target for his speculation.
This technique gave rise to the term “hit and run.” What Soros always leaves behind, is a collapsed local market and financial ruin of national investors.
The secret of the Quantum Fund NV
Soros is the visible side of a vast and nasty secret network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe, centered in the British House of Windsor. This network, called by its members the Club of Isles, was built upon the wreckage of the British Empire after World War II.
Rather than use the powers of the state to achieve their geopolitical goals, a secret cross-linked holding of private financial interests, tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of western Europe, was developed.
It was in many ways modeled on the 17th-century British and Dutch East India Companies. The heart of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British Empire, the City of London. Soros is one of what in medieval days were called Hofjuden, the “Court Jews,” who were deployed by the aristocratic families.
The most important of such “Jews who are not Jews,” are the Rothschilds, who launched Soros’s career. They are members of the Club of the Isles and retainers of the British royal family. This has been true since Amschel Rothschild sold the British Hessian troops to fight against George Washington during the American Revolution.
Soros is American only in his passport. He is a global financial operator, who happens to be in New York, simply because “that’s where the money is,” as the bank robber Willy Sutton once quipped, when asked why he always robbed banks.
Soros speculates in world financial markets through his offshore company, Quantum Fund NV, a private investment fund, or “hedge fund.” His hedge fund reportedly manages some $11-14 billion of funds on behalf of its clients, or investors — one of the most prominent of whom is, according to Soros, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, [one of] the wealthiest person[s] in Europe.
The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles, in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true nature of his investors and what he does with their money.
Legal headquarters moved to tax heaven Curacao
In order to avoid U.S. government supervision of his financial activities, something normal U.S.-based investment funds must by law agree to in order to operate, Soros moved his legal headquarters to the Caribbean tax haven of Curacao.
The Netherlands Antilles has repeatedly been cited by the Task Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as one of the world’s most important centers for laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic. It is a possession of the Netherlands.
Soros has taken care that the none of the 99 individual investors who participate in his various funds is an American national. By U.S. securities law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 highly wealthy individuals, so-called “sophisticated investors.” By structuring his investment company as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny.
Soros himself is not even on the board of Quantum Fund. Instead, for legal reasons, he serves the Quantum Fund as official “investment adviser,” through another company, Soros Fund Management, of New York City. If any demand were to be made of Soros to reveal the details of Quantum Fund’s operations, he is able to claim he is “merely its investment adviser.”
Any competent police investigator looking at the complex legal structure of Soros’s businesses would conclude that there is prima facie evidence of either vast money laundering of illicit funds, or massive illegal tax evasion. Both may be true.
To make it impossible for U.S. tax authorities or other officials to look into the financial dealings of his web of businesses, the board of directors of Quantum Fund NV also includes no American citizens. His directors are Swiss, Italian, and British financiers.
George Soros is part of a tightly knit financial mafia — “mafia,” in the sense of a closed masonic-like fraternity of families pursuing common aims. Anyone who dares to criticize Soros or any of his associates, is immediately hit with the charge of being “anti-Semitic” — a criticism which often silences or intimidates genuine critics of Soros’s unscrupulous operations.
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith considers it a top priority to “protect” Soros from the charges of “anti-Semites” in Hungary and elsewhere in Central Europe, according to ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. The ADL’s record of service to the British oligarchy has been amply documented by EIR (e.g. The Ugly Truth About the Anti-Defamation League [Washington, D.C., Executive Intelligence Review: 1992]).
According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros’s circle includes indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive Marc Rich of Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv; secretive Israeli arms and commodity dealer Shaul Eisenberg, and “Dirty Rafi” Eytan, both linked to the financial side of the Israeli Mossad; and, the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.
Understandably, Soros and the Rothschild interests prefer to keep their connection hidden far from public view, so as to obscure the well-connected friends Soros enjoys in the City of London, the British Foreign Office, Israel, and the U.S. financial establishment.
3 Corporations Run the World: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City
The myth, therefore, has been created, that Soros is a lone financial investment “genius” who, through his sheer personal brilliance in detecting shifts in markets, has become one of the world’s most successful speculators. According to those who have done business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move without sensitive insider information.
On the board of directors of Soros’s Quantum Fund N.V. is Richard Katz, a Rothschild man who is also on the board of the London N.M. Rothschild and Sons merchant bank, and the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A. of Milan.
Another Rothschild family link to Soros’s Quantum Fund is Quantum board member Nils O. Taube, the partner of the London investment group St. James Place Capital, whose major partner is Lord Rothschild.
London Times columnist Lord William Rees-Mogg is also on the board of Rothschild’s St. James Place Capital.
A frequent business partner of Soros in various speculative deals, including in the 1993 gold manipulation, although not on the Quantum Fund directly, is the Anglo-French speculator Sir James Goldsmith, a cousin of the Rothschild family.
From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969, he owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking network. Soros worked in New York in the 1960s for a small private bank close to the Rothschilds, Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, Inc., a banking family which represented Rothschild interests in Germany during Bismarck’s time.
To this day, A. & S. Bleichroeder, Inc. remains the Principal Custodian, along with Citibank, of funds of Soros’s Quantum Fund. George C. Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild’s Switzerland-based Banque Privee SA in Lugano, as well as of the scandal-tainted Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich, gave Soros financial backing. Karlweiss provided some of the vital initial capital and investors for Soros’s Quantum Fund.
Union Banque Privee and the ‘Swiss connection’
Another member of the board of Soros’s Quantum Fund is the head of one of the most controversial Swiss private banks, Edgar de Picciotto, who has been called “one of the cleverest bankers in Geneva” — and is one of the most scandal-tainted.
De Picciotto, from an old Portuguese Jewish trading family, who was born in Lebanon, is head of the Geneva private bank CBI-TDB Union Bancaire Privee, a major player in the gold and offshore hedge funds business. Hedge funds have been identified by international police agencies as the fastest-growing outlet for illegal money laundering today.
De Picciotto is a longtime friend and business associate of banker Edmond Safra, also born in Lebanon, whose family came from Aleppo, Syria, and who now controls the Republic Bank of New York. Republic Bank has been identified in U.S. investigations into Russian organized crime, as the bank involved in transferring billions of U.S. Federal Reserve notes from New York to organized crime-controlled Moscow banks, on behalf of Russian organized crime figures.
Safra is under investigation by U.S. and Swiss authorities for laundering Turkish and Columbian drug money. In 1990, Safra’s Trade Development Bank (TDB) of Geneva was merged with de Picciotto’s CBI to create the CBI-TDB Union Banque Privee. The details of the merger are shrouded in secrecy to this day.
As part of the deal, de Picciotto became a board member of American Express Bank (Switzerland) SA of Geneva, and two American Express Bank of New York executives sit on the board of de Picciotto’s Union Banque Privee.
Safra had sold his Trade Development Bank to American Express, Inc. in the 1980s. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of American Express, Inc., which has repeatedly been implicated in international money-laundering scandals.
De Picciotto’s start as a Geneva banker came from Nicholas Baring of the London Barings Bank, who tapped de Picciotto to run the bank’s secret Swiss bank business. Barings has for centuries been private banker to the British royal family, and since the bank’s collapse in March 1995, has been overhauled by the Dutch ING Bank, which is reported to be a major money-laundering institution.
De Picciotto is also a longtime business partner of Venetian businessman Carlo De Benedetti, who recently was forced to resign as head of Olivetti Corp. Both persons sit on the board of the Societe Financiere de Geneve investment holding company in Geneva. De Benedetti is under investigation in Italy for suspicion of triggering the collapse of Italy’s Banco Ambrosiano in the early 1980s.
The head of that bank, Roberto Calvi, was later found hanging from the London Blackfriar’s Bridge, in what police believe was a masonic ritual murder.
De Picciotto and his Union Banque Privee have been implicated in numerous drug and illegal money-laundering operations. In November 1994, U.S. federal agents arrested a senior official of de Picciotto’s Geneva bank, Jean-Jacques Handali, along with two other UBP officials, on charges of leading a multimillion-dollar drug-money-laundering ring.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, Handali and Union Banque Privee were the “Swiss connection” in an international drug-money-laundering ring tied to Colombian and Turkish cocaine and heroin organizations.
A close business and political associate of de Picciotto is a mysterious arm dealer, Helmut Raiser, who is linked in business dealings with reputed Russian organized crime kingpin Grigori Luchansky, who controls the Russian and Swiss holding company Nordex Group.
Another director of Soros’s Quantum Fund is Isodoro Albertini, owner of the Milan stock brokerage firm Albertini and Co. Beat Notz of the Geneva Banque Worms is another private banker on the board of Soros’s Quantum Fund, as is Alberto Foglia, who is chief of the Lugano, Switzerland Banca del Ceresio.
Lugano, just across the Swiss border from Milan, is notorious as the financial secret bank haven for Italian organized crime families, including the heroin mafia behind the 1980s “Pizza Connection” case. The Banca del Ceresio has been one of the secret Swiss banks identified in the recent Italian political corruption scandals as the repository of bribe funds of several Italian politicians now in prison.
The sponsorship of the Rothschilds
Soros’s relation to the Rothschild finance circle represents no ordinary or casual banking connection. It goes a long way to explain the extraordinary success of a mere private speculator, and Soros’s uncanny ability to “gamble right” so many times in such high-risk markets. Soros has access to the “insider track” in some of the most important government and private channels in the world.
Since World War II, the Rothschild family, at the heart of the financial apparatus of the Club of the Isles, has gone to great lengths to create a public myth about its own insignificance. The family has spent significant sums cultivating a public image as a family of wealthy, but quiet, “gentlemen,” some of whom prefer to cultivate fine French wines, some of whom are devoted to charity.
Since British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote his famous November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild, expressing official British government backing for establishment of a Palestinian national home for the Jewish people, the Rothschilds were intimately involved in the creation of Israel.
But behind their public facade of a family donating money for projects such as planting trees in the deserts of Israel, N.M. Rothschild of London is at the center of various intelligence operations, and more than once has been linked to the more unsavory elements of international organized crime.
The family prefers to keep such links at arm’s length, and away from its London headquarters, via its lesser-known outposts such as their Zurich Rothschild Bank AG and Rothschild Italia of Milan, the bank of Soros partner Richard Katz.
N.M. Rothschild is considered by City of London sources to be one of the most influential parts of the British intelligence establishment, tied to the Thatcher “free market” wing of the Tory Party.
Rothschild and Sons made huge sums managing for Thatcher the privatization of billions of dollars of British state industry holdings during the 1980s, and today, for John Major’s government.
Rothschilds is also at the very heart of the world gold trade, being the bank at which twice daily the London Gold Fix is struck by a group of the five most influential gold trade banks. Gold constitutes a major part of the economy of drug dealings globally.
N.M. Rothschild and Sons is also implicated in some of the filthiest drugs-for-weapons secret intelligence operations. Because it is connected to the highest levels of the British intelligence establishment, Rothschilds managed to evade any prominent mention of its complicity in one of the more sordid black covert intelligence networks, that of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
Rothschilds was at the center of the international web of money-laundering banks used during the 1970s and 1980s by Britain’s MI-6 and the networks of Col. Oliver North and George Bush, to finance such projects as the Nicaraguan Contras.
#1 Drug Dealers in the World? Overwhelming Evidence That the CIA is Smuggling Drugs for Decades
On June 8, 1993 the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Banking, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex.), made a speech charging that the U.S. government, under the previous Bush and Reagan administrations, had systematically refused to prosecute the BCCI, and that the Department of Justice had repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congressional investigations of both the BCCI scandal and what Gonzalez claims is the closely related scandal of the Atlanta, Georgia Banca Nationale del Lavoro, which was alleged to have secured billions in loans from the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein, just prior to the Gulf War of 1990-91.
Gonzalez charged that the Bush administration had “a Justice Department that I say, and I repeat, has been the most corrupt, most unbelievably corrupt justice system that I have seen in the 32 years I have been in the Congress.”
The BCCI violated countless laws, including laundering drug money, financing illegal arms traffic, and falsifying bank records. In July 1991, New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced a grand jury indictment against BCCI, charging it with having committed “the largest bank fraud in world financial history. BCCI operated as a corrupt criminal organization throughout its entire 19-year history.”
The BCCI had links directly into the Bush White House. Saudi Sheik Kamal Adham, a BCCI director and former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence when George Bush was head of the CIA, was one of the BCCI shareholders indicted in the United States.
Days after his indictment, former top Bush White House aide Edward Rogers went to Saudi Arabia as a private citizen to sign a contract to represent Sheikh Adham in the United States.
But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI.
The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked to Nordex.
Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank, which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice president, conduited funds to Helmut Raiser’s Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the CondorII missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq War.
Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank, the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport, was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North’s Contra drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.
Rich, Reichmann, and Soros’s Israeli links
According to reports of former U.S. State Department intelligence officers familiar with the Soros case, Soros’s Quantum Fund amassed a war chest of well over $10 billion, with the help of a powerful group of “silent” investors who let Soros deploy the capital to demolish European monetary stability in September 1992.
Among Soros’s silent investors, these sources say, are the fugitive metals and oil trader Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland; and Shaul Eisenberg, a decades-long member of Israeli Mossad intelligence, who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East.
Eisenberg was recently banned from doing business in Uzbekistan, where he had been accused by the government of massive fraud and corruption. A third Soros partner is Israel’s “Dirty Rafi” Eytan, who served in London previously as Mossad liaison to British intelligence.
Rich was one of the most active western traders in oil, aluminum, and other commodities in the Soviet Union and Russia between 1989 and 1993. This, not coincidentally, is just the period when Grigori Luchansky’s Nordex Group became a multibillion-dollar company selling Russian oil, aluminum, and other commodities.
Canadian real estate entrepreneur Paul Reichmann, formerly of Olympia and York notoriety, a Hungarian-born Jew like Soros, is a business partner in Soros’s Quantum Realty, a $525-million real estate investment fund.
The Reichmann tie links Soros as well with Henry Kissinger and former Tory Foreign Minister Lord Carrington (who is also a member of Kissinger Associates, Inc. of New York). Reichmann sits with both Kissinger and Carrington on the board of the influential British-Canadian publishing group, Hollinger, Inc.
Hollinger owns a large number of newspapers in Canada and the United States, the London Daily Telegraph, and the largest English-language daily in Israel, the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger has been attacking President Clinton and the Middle East peace process ever since Clinton’s election in November 1992.
Soros and Geopolitics
Soros is little more than one of several significant vehicles for economic and financial warfare by the Club of the Isles faction. Because his affiliations to these interests have not previously been spotlighted, he serves extremely useful functions for the oligarchy, as in 1992 and 1993, when he launched his attack on the European Rate Mechanism.
Although Soros’s speculation played a role in finally taking the British pound out of the ERM currency group entirely, it would be a mistake to view that action as “anti-British.” Soros went for the first time to London, where he studied under Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek at the London School of Economics.
Soros’s business ties to Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Rothschild place him in the inner circles of the Thatcher wing of the British establishment.
By helping the “anti-Europe” Thatcherites pull Britain out of the ERM in September 1992 (and making more than $1 billion in the process at British taxpayer expense), Soros helped the long-term goal of the Thatcherites in weakening continental Europe’s economic stability.
Since 1904, it has been British geopolitical strategy to prevent by all means any successful economic linkage between western continental European economies, especially that of Germany, with Russia and the countries of eastern Europe.
Soros’s personal outlook is consonant with that of the Thatcher wing of the Tory Party, those who three years ago launched the “Germany, the Fourth Reich” hate campaign against unified Germany, comparing Chancellor Helmut Kohl with Adolf Hitler. Soros is personally extremely anti-German.
In his 1991 autobiography, Underwriting Democracy, Soros warned that a reunited Germany would “upset the balance of Europe …. It is easy to see how the interwar scenario could be replayed. A united Germany becomes the strongest economic power and develops Eastern Europe as its Lebensraum … a potent witches’ brew.”
Soros’s recent public attacks on the German economy and the deutsche mark are fundamentally motivated by this geopolitical view.
Soros is quite close to the circles of George Bush in the U.S. intelligence community and finance. His principal bank custodian, and reputed major lender in the 1992 assault on Europe’s ERM, is Citicorp NA, the nation’s largest bank. Citicorp is more than a lending institution; it is a core part of the American liberal establishment.
In 1989, as it became clear that German unification was a real possibility, a senior official at Citicorp, a former adviser to Michael Dukakis’s Presidential campaign, told a European business associate that…
“German unity will be a disaster for our interests; we must take measures to ensure a sharp D-Mark collapse on the order of 30%, so that she will not have the capability to reconstruct East Germany into the economic engine of a new Europe.”
While Soros was calling on world investors to pull down the Deutsche mark in 1993, he had been making a strong play in the French media, since late 1992, to portray himself as a “friend of French interests.”
Soros is reported to be close to senior figures of the French establishment, the Treasury, and in particular, Bank of France head Jean-Claude Trichet. In effect, Soros is echoing the old Entente Cordiale alliance against Germany, which helped precipitate World War 1.
Soros admits that he survived in Nazi Hungary during the war, as a Jew, by adopting what he calls a double personality.
“I have lived with a double personality practically all my life,” Soros recently stated. “It started at age fourteen in Hungary, when I assumed a false identity in order to escape persecution as a Jew.”
Soros admitted in a radio interview that his father gave him Nazi credentials in Hungary during the war, and he looted wealthy Jewish estates. Further research showed that this operation was probably run by the SS.
Soros did not leave the country until two years after the war. Though he and his friends in the media are quick to attack any policy opponent of Soros, especially in eastern Europe, as being “anti-Semitic,” Soros’s Jewish identity apparently has only utilitarian value for him, rather than providing moral foundations.
In short, the young Soros was a cynical, ambitious person, the ideal recruit for the British postwar intelligence network.
Soros savages Eastern Europe
Soros has established no fewer than 19 “charitable” foundations across eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has sponsored “peace” concerts in former Yugoslavia with such performers as Joan Baez. He is helping send young east Europeans to Oxford University. A model citizen, is the image he broadcasts.
The reality is something else. Soros has been personally responsible for introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe since 1989.
He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg, to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices.
Here are illustrative case histories of Soros’s eastern “charity”:
Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the “reform” communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization.
According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population.
Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once thie were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises.
A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa.
According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.
Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading to the takeover of that nation’s economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90.
Soros boasts, “I established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech] Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.”
He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach’s shock therapy on Poland.
Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that “largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister.” Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest.
Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros’s shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.
Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation.
As with his other “charitable foundations,” this was a tax-free vehicle for Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, but up important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle.
It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in late 1991. Soros describes his effort:
“I started mobilizing a group of economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs, with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel.”
Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West.
Yegor Gaidar and the Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the ruble went out of control.
The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry had no way to compete.
There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich’s companies have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.
Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan.
When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg, his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central Asian republics.
Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was labeled an “anti-Semite,” and in June 1993, he was forced out of the governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros’s close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos.
Fast-forward to 2018: ‘List of Soros’ Names 226 MEPs in Europe Who Are Under the Complete Control of George Soros
Lighting the Balkan Fuse
In early 1990, in what was then still Yugoslavia, Soros’s intervention with shock therapy, in cooperation with the IMF, helped light the economic fuse that led to the outbreak of war in June 1991.
Soros boasted at that time:
“Yugoslavia is a particularly interesting case. Even as national rivalries have brought the country to the verge of a breakup, a radical monetary stabilization program, which was introduced on the same date as in Poland — January 1, 1990 — has begun to change the political landscape. The program is very much along the Polish lines, and it had greater initial success. By the middle of the year, people were beginning to think Yugoslav again.”
Soros is friends with former Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, the former U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and the patron of Serbian Communist leader Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger is a past president of Kissinger Associates, on whose board sits Lord Carrington, whose Balkan mediations supported Serbian aggression into Croatia and Bosnia.
Today [i.e. 1996], Soros has established his Foundation centers in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and a Soros Yugoslavia Foundation in Belgrade, Serbia. In Croatia, he has tried to use his foundation monies to woo influential journalists or to slander opponents of his shock therapy, by labeling them variously “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi.”
The head of Soros’s Open Society Fund — Croatia, Prof. Zarko Puhovski, is a man who has reportedly made a recent dramatic conversion from orthodox Marxism to Soros’s radical free market.
Only seven years ago, according to one of his former students, as professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Puhovski attacked students trying to articulate a critique of communism, by insisting, “It is unprincipled to criticize Marxism from a liberal standpoint.”
His work for the Soros Foundation in Zagreb has promoted an anti-nationalist “global culture,” hiring a network of anti-Croatian journalists to propagandize, in effect, for the Serbian cause.
These examples can be elaborated for each of the other 19 locations across eastern Europe where George Soros operates. The political agenda of Soros and this group of financial “globalists” will create the conditions for a new outbreak of war, even world war, if it continues to be tolerated.
Care to know what Soros has been up to these days, in Europe? George Soros’ Organizations Work Tirelessly to Flood the European Continent with Illegal Migrants,
About the Author:
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The graphic above published by NOAA’s National Hurricane Center depicts the various “Tropical Cyclones and Disturbances” in the Atlantic Ocean during a typical hurricane season.
