Officer Corp Propaganda, Gun Control, Media Bias, the Fed

If you've done some serious reading on 20th century activities of the "international banking elite", and reviewed the patterns of the last century, you would see the world's most powerful international banking new world order types way too close to the goal line for your personal comfort.

The officer corps of the U.S. military is a key piece of the puzzle. At the beginning of the U.S. Civil War, the U.S. military basically divided itself into two sides and fought itself. The question then was on succession. In the future the question to the service members would be on federation: Will you swear a new oath of allegiance that is not solely to the U.S. Constitution, but to an international body of which the U.S. is a member ? The Navy is already being forced to repeat the mantra that they are "a global force for good". Depending on the military's center of gravity, we would either see the U.S. becoming part of a larger union, or a showdown of some kind. Flag officers winding up retiring to the Council on Foreign Relations and continual propagandizing at the Service Academies, IMHO, signifies a strategy to keep slowly chipping away until the military is amenable to oath changes, which assures the new world order transition with only minor annoyance for resistance.

All news networks are ceaselessly pounding out propaganda on gun control, like a bird dog flushing out it's prey. Surely somewhere analysts are judging the public's reaction to this constant pinging.

The purebred globalist Richard Fisher, lieutentant at the Dallas Fed, coyly used the "Texan" angle to play the Fed's "conservative" "rebel" in a burst of pings this week designed to sow the seeds of setting up for a segmented collapse. Statism's local monopoly banks in the U.S. could then essentially survive a meltdown, along with the Fed, enabling their continued use as loan sharks to the nation as a whole. The last century surely has taught us that statists have perfected the meltdown just has much as they have mastered civil unrest and casus belli.

It's good to be the King, but it's better to be the lender of last resort to the King who is in debt up to his eyeballs.

Great question. I’ll go one step at a time.

For who, first, you’ll need to research a bit about J P Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and the size of their “empires” and their scope - how many Boards of Directors of different companies were controlled by them and men working for them. One has to do the reading to get back in time and understand what they controlled, how large the empires were and the way of interlocking directorships.

The Panic of 1907 history has been sanitized in most published books, but you can find some articles and books that do not leave out essential details which, when analyzed with only a little common sense, make it obvious that it was engineered to create a bank run.

Then it’s, of course, important to understand that out of the panic of 1907 came a tremendous fear and outcry which put the public in a mindset that was ready to accept the Federal Reserve. Why would the most powerful banking interests want that arrangement ?

I love it when liberals say “some projects are so big only the government can do them”. You’ve heard this, right ? It’s a bold-faced lie, sarcastically flaunting the real motives right out there in public. It’s real easy to cut through. Where does the government, since 1913 get its money from from ? Taxes, right ? Well, it has a stream of tax revenue coming in every year from the private sector. But the Treasury issues bonds and borrows out in front of the taxes collected. Think about it - it’s the private sector buyers of Treasury bonds who are providing the financing to the government. Could the treasury sell it’s bonds without the primary dealer banks ? Over $3,000 per American per year would be needed to fund a $1T deficit, so the answer is no. Ergo, the major banks are the creditors of the government, the banker they need to go talk to when the government needs money.

Charles W. Morse, essential in the Panic of 1907, did have dealings with J P Morgan; I have a pdf copy of an original newspaper story announcing that J P Morgan financed his $10,000,000 purchase of a steamship company. Morse’s “attempt to corner the copper market” is what the santized versions of the story point to, and they talk about an ensuing panic and people withdrawing deposits from banks. If you search, you’ll find that the interests I’m talking about, though this is not mentioned in sanitized versions of the story, from their own deposits in various banks, made withdrawals, called in loans, etc., that actually kicked the panic into gear.

Morgan and Rockefeller did not run their empires themselves, they had numerous high-level employees and partners in their businesses, friends and allies in related companies, and they had heirs as well. The people at the top of these empires thought quite highly of themselves to be sure: they saw how efficiently they could run a business and how smart they were and how they could steamroll over the government by backing or opposing politicians selectively.

Part of all the let’s say “unconventional” business tactics they adopted regarding influencing government and society in order to achieve their ends was the idea of setting up tax-free foundations and putting large sums into them as endowments. Us “little people” don’t “get it”, though. The sums were not cash, but stock they owned in various related companies, of which they controlled the Board of Directors. Since they, their heirs, lawyers, etc., control the foundations and sit on their boards of directors, the voting rights of the stock the foundation owns are exercised - according to what suits them. So even though they have “given away half their stock” in company A, B, C, they still control how that half votes. They still control the election of directors, thus they still control the board of directors of company A,B,C.

Since those early days the various interests have simply continued on. Peggy Dulany is an example of a direct heir, though one has to understand that all the original business partners, managers and associates also have heirs. Of course, the group is not just heirs, but anyone who came into that network through perhaps their career, education, perhaps leftist ideology or organizing. And the group is not a set group necessarily with a membership roll and a published mission statement. These people fill the ranks of the Boards of Directors of foundations, endowments, think tanks, policy development organizations, universities and charities, as well as for-profit corporations whose Boards have their roots in this same network, or were sucked into the network’s influence sphere along the way.

While leftism is a cause that is useful to them, few of those closest to the inside track would say they are statists, communists, leftists, etc. Big capital’s support of totalitariasm and leftism is the secret that they need to keep hidden from both the political left and right. The big money people need to stay in the background in the news. And whenever they do appear in public or are covered in the press, they are wearing their capitalist hat. But almost all like the idea of eroding national sovereignty in favor of something more “organized”, because we have to “solve problems” like overpopulation, disease, etc., that are “too big” for anyone to solve on their own.

Why ? They are monopolists. In order to have any concept of that you must imagine yourself in, say, Bill Gates position, and have some basic business knowledge. All shareholders want ROI, return on investment, which is, profit at the end of a year. But each year there is profit left in the corporation and not paid out as a dividend, the “I” gets that much bigger. Closing the books at the end of the year, to use the jargon, moves the final net income after everything to Retained Earnings; it increases Owner’s Equity. So if my stock in a company was worth $100 at book value last year, after this year’s $5 profit it’s now worth $105. Now next year, I need to earn 5% on $105. Next year, to earn 5%, I’d need to earn $5.25. The next year, I’d need to earn $5.51. So the big corporation who as a virtual monopoly on the whole U.S. market for operating system and office software must embark on a search for new revenue, or start cutting costs by shrinking its workforce in order to not see it’s ROI % start shrinking as, over the years, equity piles up on the balance sheet. Consequently he gets into new products like gaming in the same geographical area. Of course, he also looks to other countries to make sales. Every company that monopolizes faces this challenge; finding places to expand. Over time, the squashing of competition becomes instinctful, since it tends to drive prices down and therefore pressures margins and hurts ROI. In no way can the monopolist see that he can’t take it with him, that he could split up the company into competing parts and he’d still do well, though some would succeed and some would fail. Thus we have behemoths who dominate whole industries, and their economies of scale are more than undone by the ease with which they can force higher prices without providing any new real economic utility in their products and services.

To a monopolist, certainly any “establishment” person, other countries includes communist or islamic countries. In fact, Wall Street happily embarked on ventures in the USSR from the outset of the Revolution, even helping to get it started. They like a controlled, managed market. How ? That’s crazy business, it’s not free enterprise. No, it’s not, but these guys are monopolists, not small business owners.

This is the situation Standard Oil and Wall Street found itself in as the 20th century unfolded, long after the orginal guys had died. They really do think that they are the smartest and that the smartest need to run things. Don’t we all feel that the government can’t run anything well ? Just imagine how such elite people must feel about government ! That’s why they get more into just running things, doing things on their own, simply backing or opposing politicians to get “their guys” to have enough influence in the State Dept and Congress and the White House so that they can alternate between projects and get them done with government helping them. Some projects create money-making opportunities for them directly, others do not make money or may even cost them money, but they create some kind of influence or control mechanism that enables them to make enormous sums of money the easy way later on.

One common theme in this network is avoiding taxes themselves. I found that GE goes way back in this network, and suddenly the GE has enough credits to net out their tax bill makes perfect sense.

You need to get into the details of how this “establishment” has done business with totalitarian states. Some of it is described in Antony Sutton’s work, which is very eye-opening, but of course could not possibly cover every transation.

Also, regarding command/control. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations, throughout its history, have thoroughly dominated the State Dept and are essentially an exclusive club of Presidential advisors. The CFR, being founded by J P Morgan, is obviously a front organization for these interests. It is unelected (by invitation only), has no legitimacy Constitutionally, is largely unknown by the general public, is funded by donations by these “interests”. It has a sister organization in the U.K.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.