EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME XXII
The Plutocrats
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume XXII--The Plutocrats
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume XXII--The Plutocrats
CHAPTER PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part PPP--The Super Rich Plutocrats
329 Carroll Quigley 6
330 Politics I 11
331 Politics II 19
332 Royalty 30
333 Foundations 34
334 The Big Pay-Offs and Benefits I 43
335 The Big Pay-Offs and Benefits II 56
336 The Federal Reserve Bank 61
337 Manipulating the Markets 73
338 Plutocratic Control of Nations 89
339 Using the Taxpayers’ Moneys I 97
340 Using the Taxpayers’ Moneys II 106
341 Exploiting the World 118
342 Why War? 131
343 The Role of the Intelligence Services 147
344 The Occult Forces 155
Part QQQ--Making Preparations
345 Protecting Investments 159
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume twenty-two of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE
Chapter 329--Carroll Quigley
Some Proverbs
As quoted in the Apr-Jun 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 7), there is a Yiddish proverb which says-- “With money in your pocket, you are wise and you are handsome and you sing well too.”
The wise Shlomo would just add that the rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender (Prov 22:7). This wisdom from Shlomo tells the tale for the totality of all of the different forms of government conceived by modern man. In all cases, the people with money call the shots. In America, this starts at the smallest level (local township or city), and it proceeds all the way up to Washington.
At some point in time (perhaps in 1917), President Woodrow Wilson hit a homerun when he said: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it” (Dec 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter, p. 5).
These three proverbs represent the real world out there, and they introduce the subject of the plutocrats and their (often secret and/or behind the scenes) rule over the masses. Soon, their rule will even extend to the top of man’s coming world government.
Carroll Quigley
In 1966, a most fascinating 1,348-page book was written and produced by Dr Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University. It was “Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time.” This book was exceptional. Because, for the first time, it reflected the writings of a man who had inside knowledge on profoundly important facts which had been largely hidden from the public at large for years.
In the 1960s, Quigley was the mentor of a young man named Bill Clinton, from Arkansas, while Carroll was professor of history at the Foreign Service School at Georgetown. Since those days, Slick Willy has acknowledged his debt to Quigley--publicly, before the world, with his presidential acceptance speech at the 1992 Democrat National Convention.
Also, in those days at Georgetown, Quigley was allowed into the inner sanctum and inner workings of the super rich (the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Lazards, Harrimans, DuPonts, Morgans, Whitneys, Vanderbilts, Astors, etc) who really have historically, and do presently, call the shots all over the world.
Some of these plutocrats--like the Bronfmans (who Quigley did not name) and the Rothschilds and Lazards (who were named)--have ties to the Amalekite Jew power structure which will be addressed later herein. Please understand, in assessing the fat cats, almost without exception, they are classic internationalists and their whole focus is on world finance, politics, commercialism, globalism and the New World Order.
The professor was allowed to study this money network for 20 years and for a period of two years in the early 1960s examined its “papers and secret records” (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 950). In effect, Quigley became one of the insiders himself. And as he admitted, he was personally impressed with what the super rich plutocrats were doing and was sympathetic and in agreement with it.
While popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and virtually the entire American establishment and leaders “seem” to have no concept at all about any conspiracy ruling the United States, the Georgetown professor knew about it, and wrote about it in quite some detail in his book (ibid, p. 949-955).
He said without hesitation that there does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act (in a secret conspiracy).
Sometimes this conspiracy is referred to as the Eastern Establishment (even by Quigley himself); and it works through various organizations (which will be examined in later presentations herein).
Dynasties
In any discussion on the super rich plutocrats, who rule many of the nations and activities on-going in the world, the point must be made that these people are essentially a part of family dynasties which simply do not go away with the death of family members.
Actually, as the older people die off in these dynasties, the mantle is passed to younger members who take over and continue the quest for power and control established by the original dynasty founders. Consequently, the rule is more along the line of plutocratic dynasties that never go away with the passing years.
Last, being internationalists, the super rich plutocrats have residences and citizenships around the world. Nationalism and the sovereignty or success of any state are just not on their agenda.
And being totally internationalists, they don’t care one whit if the United States or any other nation goes broke or has problems. With their international passports, the collapse of the US will offer no adverse impact upon the super rich who caused the trouble.
Other Views
Of course, Quigley was not the first person of some reputation to come along and spill the beans about a secret conspiracy among the super rich to coordinate their common goals of profit and world domination. Many have revealed much useful information, either intentionally, or by accident, although their words have effectively fallen on deaf ears when recorded.
This fat cat quest for profits, wealth and rule started long ago. It is not merely a phenomenon of modern times. For example, by the year 1812, the Amalekite Rothschild family owned one-half of the wealth of the then civilized Western world (“The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK,” p. 9).
In 1852, Gladstone, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, said “The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned” (Dec 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter, p. 4).
In 1909, Walter Rathenau (an evident Amalekite Jew, who controlled the German General Electric Company), said: “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves” (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 61). Surely, most or many of these 300 rulers were Rothschilds, Rothschild relatives or Rothschild agents.
Incidentally, the famous Haman, the Amalekite, who tried to destroy the true Israelite Jews in the old Medeo-Persian empire, had some 300 followers (evidently Amalekites) in Shushan (as pointed out in previous commentary--Est 9:15). Whether this remark in Esther is relevant to the situation in Europe or not is unclear to this writer. But it is a fascinating number in discussing Amalekite control.
Carroll Quigley suggested that in the 20th century the Morgan (an international bank with links to the Rothschilds) and Rockefeller financial groups were so powerful that by acting in collusion they could wreck the entire American economic system if they so chose (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 72). They caused the 1929 stock market crisis and indeed are behind all of the major movements in the US financial markets.
On September 21, 1921, the London “Financial Times” said “Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills” (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 61).
In Jan 1924, Reginald McKenna, chairman of Britain’s Midland Bank and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, told his stockholders that ordinary citizens “will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money... And they control the credit of the nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people” (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 325).
Montague Norman (who headed the privately owned Bank of England) appeared before Britain’s Court of Bank on March 21, 1930, and said “I hold the hegemony of the world” (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 62).
This statement is very logical. Because, many long years earlier, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, said to permit him to control a nation’s money and he cared not who wrote its laws. In a word, money talks!
Perceptive People
In 1951, Senator William Jenner spoke from the floor of the US Senate and said that America was ruled by a “secret inner coterie” involved in a cancerous conspiracy and a secret invisible government by agents of the USSR (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 977).
On Jun 23, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and some of his key people had a meeting at his dacha with Averell Harriman, a member of one of the fat cat families under discussion by Quigley. While apparently drunk and in a light mood, the Communist leader said that America is totally controlled by a tiny group of capitalists (“Origins of the 4th World War,” p. 46).
Harriman pretended to be naive and asked who these capitalists were. The wise and foxy Khrushchev let the cat out of the bag. He pushed a finger against Harriman and said-- “You’re one of them.” Reportedly, Harriman was in a state of shock with this penetrating remark.
As late as Dec 27, 1965, a priest named Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church, was quoted by UPI as referring to this conspiracy and saying to an ecumenical council: “This...Godless society operates in an extremely efficient manner at least in its higher levels of leadership. It makes use of every possible means at its disposal, be they scientific, technical, social or economic.”
Going on, Arrupe added that “It follows a perfectly mapped-out strategy. It holds almost complete sway in international organizations, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and television” (“None Dare Call It Conspiracy” by Gary Allen, p. 13-14).
Actually--Control
In the mid 1930s, in America, some 200 of the largest non-financial corporations and fifty of the largest banks owned 34% of the assets of “all” industrial corporations, 48% of the assets of “all” commercial banks, 75% of the assets of “all” public utilities and 95% of the assets of “all” railroads (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 531). It’s even more centralized in fewer and fewer hands today.
To this list of stock ownership, it must be pointed out that actual control is far more extensive. Many of the super rich own and/or control large banks which operate huge trust departments that hold, manage and vote the stock and financial assets of various persons (particularly of dead ones). While the dividends may go to the stock owner or survivor, voting control rests with the banks.
Beyond the obvious, in terms of big banks, the situation with mutual funds and investment banks and consortiums is about the same. Many of these groups raise large sums of money from the general public for capital ventures. The people, in control of these funds, control their uses. If they invest in stocks, they have the voting rights. Many Wall Street firms are heavily involved in these efforts.
Consequently, it isn’t only the number of corporations and business groups and activities that are owned outright by the super rich. It is a bigger issue because they own and/or control many banks, Wall Street firms, mutual funds, foundations, investment banks, consortiums, etc; which, in turn, own and/or control many, many, other corporations and business ventures.
The Gullible Public
Through public participation in stock ownership, much of the public is led to believe that they are the ones (stockholders) calling the shots in terms of corporate management. Because of the way the system works, this is not always true at all for corporations, though the big boys try to promote the concept publicly and educate the masses into believing it.
The voting control in the hands of small individual investors is not only limited, but it is often highly diffused. This allows a few fat cats to rule and manage large and/or multi-national corporations with only small percentages of stock ownership or control (sometimes 1 to 10%). Talk about overall control by the super rich!
In a June 2000 speech to union leaders in Sioux Falls, SD, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader railed against the US government “of the Exxons, by the General Motors and for the DuPonts” (June 19, 2000, “Newsweek,” p. 34). While Nader’s point was well made, there is more to it. The issue is not so much over Exxon, GM or DuPont; but rather, the fat cats who own/control those giant corporations.
Chapter 330--Politics I
Political Control by the Super Rich
Many persons have perceived that the Republican party in the US is dominated by the more affluent Americans and big businesses, while the Democrat party is “ostensibly” the party of the poor and working classes (or at least, this is the perception among many Americans).
In the conduct of their media spin and manipulation campaigns, the Democrats have, of course, always been anxious to paint this picture to the American voting electorate. Obviously, if the gullible voting goyim can be led to believe that the Democrats are the party of the little man, while the Republicans belong to rich people and big business, there is a favorable fall-out for the Democrats in the elections.
Former President Bill “Slick” Clinton has successfully used this strategy in his election campaigns, evidently from day one.
Even Gore came out in the 2000 campaign pretending to be a populist fighting the big corporations. The truth is that both Gore and Bush and both the Democrats and Republicans have been historically financed and owned by the fat cats.
Hence, it is no wonder that these two dominant parties can be and are known as Republicrats or Demopublicans (since there is so little difference between them). The only difference of substance between them is which party gets to name the head man to rule and dominate the country. This is a difference which can cause a conflict in US elections.
All of the Gore talk in 2000 about populism was nothing but lies and deception (as he continued to receive money from the very sources he complained about). His motive was obviously only one of attacking the people’s enemies to get some votes. A column by Kerri Houston and Merrill Matthews Jr on “Republicans must control the spin” in the Feb 7-13, 2000, “Washington Times” (p. 29) addressed this subject.
In terms of the anticipated 2000 elections, Houston and Matthews said that “Mr. Clinton will ‘blackwash’ Republicans with that old Democratic standby--that Republicans are the party of big business.” And that’s the way things were developing in early 2000 (on the premise that there would be elections in Nov 2000 and a Clinton successor would be elected--as happened with George W. Bush).
Incidentally, this mention of the rich, actually controlling both American political parties, needs one more clarification (as provided by a perceptive Catholic priest).
Priest John O’Connor
Per his video on “Come Lord Jesus,” Catholic Priest John O’Connor quoted Benjamin Freedman who said that Ashkenazi Jews took over the US Democrat party in the early 20th century. O’Connor spoke of the Ashkenazim, in the context of Khazar pretenders (correctly Amalekites, as discussed earlier herein).
In this video, O’Connor says that nine out of ten US Jews are in this Ashkenazi category of pretending to be Jews while they are not Jews (Rev 2:9; 3:9). This writer would only clarify O’Connor’s remarks by indicating that most of these Ashkenazi Jews are Amalekites, as discussed in former chapters.
Benjamin Freedman was a colleague of many of the fat cat, plutocratic Amalekite Jews who have taken control of the United States in the 20th century, as outlined heretofore. Apparently, Freedman was in the inner circles of the likes of the plutocrat Bernard Baruch (1870-1965) and others. Freedman had a falling out with them years ago and exposed their plans for plutocratic rule and domination over others.
Bad Thinking
Well, this American thinking on the Democrats being opposed to the fat cats is simply not true at all.
Actually, most of the super rich dynasties that control America here in the early 21st century and their political cronies are liberal Democrats--who particularly push for more and more government in all phases of American life (which is precisely what the super rich want themselves since they control the politicians who control the government).
Party statistics establish this strange condition for any person wanting to look into it. So people with money are in charge of both political parties.
With this plutocratic control of American politics, it is manifest that these same super rich persons control the US government and most of the rest of the Western civilization governments as well, for good or bad. In this sense, these Western sun worship governments are clearly plutocratic (under the control of the plutocrat internationalists).
In November 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Colonel Edward Mandell House (1858-1938) had an exchange of correspondence. House, an Amalekite Jew, had formerly been a close aide and associate of President Woodrow Wilson in his years of ruling America (1913-1921). In terms of pulling strings and initiating actions in the WWI years, House was the man while Wilson was more of a figure head.
In any case, FDR wrote the former power broker House and mentioned a most fascinating thing. In noting that House would agree, Roosevelt made a reference to the fact that the financial elite had controlled America since the presidency of Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837 (per Stan Monteith, in his video “Secrets of the Illuminati”).
FDR used the word “since” (which can mean after or following). So apparently, he said that plutocrats controlled the US from Martin Van Buren forward. This writer cannot dispute that statement for certain one way or the other.
But Some Breaks
There were only a few clear breaks for sure in the plutocratic power over America. As will be addressed in later comments herein, those came with Andy Jackson, John Tyler, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William Howard Taft.
Lincoln was elected by and served the money power in his early days in office. But he eventually turned against them and they (in league with Secretary of War William Stanton) seemingly became his killers. In 1880, James Garfield was elected. It appears that he was never submissive to the plutocrats. So they apparently assassinated him shortly after he took office (to be described in a later chapter).
Taft certainly didn’t toe their line (he was a populist and against the bankers and their plans for a central bank in the form of the Federal Reserve). They constantly attacked him. When he was ready to run a second time, they raised up their Amalekite friend Teddy Roosevelt to run as a third party candidate (with the Bull Moose party) to split the Republican vote and usher in Woodrow Wilson--who was the banker’s man.
The Super Rich Control US Elections
As will be discussed elsewhere herein, this writer takes the position that the Rothschilds did their best in the 19th century to take over America. They largely failed. But an American power, in the form of the Eastern Establishment (referred to as Anglophiles by Carroll Quigley), gradually took over during that century.
It was this big money power in the Eastern Establishment (with the Rockefellers, Harrimans, DuPonts, Morgans, Whitneys, Vanderbilts, etc) who began electing and controlling politicians--certainly, by the time of the Civil War. J. P. Morgan Sr. (1837-1913), an Anglophile, who was identified with the Eastern Establishment, was actually (in time) a colleague of the European Rothschilds.
At a first glance, one may suppose that the European, Amalekite Rothschilds were not a part of the US Eastern Establishment Anglophiles. But this is not really true since the Rothschilds began working, associating and collaborating with a similar power bloc of Anglophiles in England much earlier (clearly, by the Napoleonic Wars, starting in 1805).
The Rothschilds were successful in eventually tying in with and gaining control over the US Morgan banking power in the late 19th century. In the early days of the Morgan Bank, the Morgan bank maintained some independence before finally being taken over by the Amalekite Jews.
The Bankers Take Over
With the arrival in 1913 of Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (who were the bankers’ allies), the money power received a big boost with the Federal Reserve Act, signed by Wilson. This act did several things (which will be assessed in some detail in later chapters).
For sure, it acknowledged the banking power of the Rockefellers. But it also opened the door to the Rothschilds’ banking interests (which had been scheming a US take-over since 1789 and the early work of the Amalekite Jew Alexander Hamilton to turn the government over to the Rothschild bankers). At last, the diabolical Rothschilds had a firm US presence with the Morgan interests and the Federal Reserve Act.
During most of the 20th century, the Rockefellers pulled the strings in America and especially in association with their super rich, Eastern Establishment allies. As will be discussed later, this reality has been changing in the last 40 years as the Rothschilds have been slowly taking over and winning in their battle with the Rockefellers and the Eastern Establishment, Anglo power.
The Rockefellers and their Eastern Establishment colleagues have generally been Republicans (specifically, liberal Republicans since WWII) while the Rothschild plutocrats have been liberal Democrats. Both of these liberal factions have effectively controlled the government since 1932. Some would argue that Reagan, as a conservative, was an exception. But even under him, the plutocrats called the shots.
The 2000 elections were a good illustration of this conflict between the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. November 2000 saw the Amalekite Jew controlled Gore being opposed by the Amalekite Christian Rockefellers’ oil colleague Bush (another evident Amalekite Christian, to be later described). The battle was so intense that enormous trouble broke out between the two factions in trying to see who would rule the US.
Quigley’s Political Thinking
This reality, that the super rich fat cats are in charge of both parties, was substantiated and elaborated upon somewhat by Quigley in “Tragedy and Hope” (p. 1247-1248). He outlined the objective of making the two parties more “international” and ridiculed the American ideas that one of them is on the right and the other on the left.
Instead, as Carroll saw it, both parties should be “almost identical” --so that if the voters get mad at the ruling party at a particular time and should throw it out of power in an election, then there would be no profound or extensive shifts in American policies when the other party takes over rulership.
Obviously, this thinking of two parties, which are essentially alike, except for small, insignificant, minor and unimportant details, has ruled the American political scene for many decades now--certainly, since the 1930s and perhaps much earlier. George Wallace had it right in 1968 when he said that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
The Sep-Oct 1997 “Prophecy Flash” paper (p. 72) had a reader’s letter which perceptively remarked that “Voting for a Democrat or Republican in America is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” It’s hard to improve on that!
Thus, when the super rich rulers establish their policies for America (actually, for their profit and power goals of internationalism and world rule), there are no significant differences in the two political parties respecting those objectives. As just noted, Quigley did allow that the two parties could have some minor differences in procedures and methods, providing that they adhered to the overall common scheme.
Another twist to this problem surfaced in more recent years when the “Chicago Tribune” confessed that “the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democratic, are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year” (“None Dare Call It Conspiracy,” p. 27).
Actually Political Control
It is useful to also note that not only are the two parties essentially the same in philosophy, but the super rich fat cats control (effectively own) the major candidates put forth for election by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Quigley pointed out the control exercised by J. P. Morgan in a number of US presidential elections (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 74).
Money talks and it is money which fuels and promotes elections in modern America. For the first 130 to 140 years of US history, most politicians could be elected with little or no money. In those days, the candidates had to make personal contacts with voters and/or speeches and talks at public meetings.
There was no media impact to deal with--beyond getting endorsements from local newspapers. Even newspaper advertising was not big in early America.
But with the arrival of the power of radio and radio advertising in the 1920s and television and television commercials in the early 1950s, everything was to change. With radio and TV, huge audiences could then be reached by candidates with a minimum of effort. The only drawback here was that this media exposure costs money--big money.
The Source of the Money
Hence, this need for big bucks causes virtually all American politicians to be forced into the profile of accepting money from the people who have the big bucks--namely the super rich fat cats.
Most of this fat cat money comes in the form of “soft money” --historically made to the political parties virtually without restraint or limitation. Though this money is made to the parties, it can be illegally diverted and used for individual candidates. Clinton was very successful in using soft money in his campaigns and nothing was done about it.
In any case, the parties can and do use soft money to elect the candidates of their choice. Even when soft money is used for party propaganda, there is a silent, indirect benefit to the various candidates who toe the party line.
In order to get the desired money and have a source of future funds for re-election purposes (re-election is always the primary focus of politicians), politicians become “prostitute politicians” who will sell out their own mothers for money (and certainly, their constituents). The super rich supply this money to American politicians, as well as money to the political left.
Quigley on Wall Street and the Left
Truly, on political influence, Carroll Quigley in “Tragedy and Hope” outlined that early in the 20th century, the J. P. Morgan international banking firm decided to infiltrate the left wing political movements in the United States, as alluded to above and earlier. This was welcomed by the liberals, Socialists and humanists since the Wall Street people had money and media control to aid their left wing political goals.
Morgan’s purpose was not to destroy the left; but to keep abreast of it, to provide it (or them) with a mouth piece (so they could blow off a little steam), and to be able to exercise a final veto on their actions (“Tragedy and Hope,” p. 938). Obviously, Morgan and his later big money colleagues have been able to exercise virtual control over the entire left wing movement with their power of the purse and the media.
One of the most powerful, political institutions in modern America is the left wing Council on Foreign Relations (the CFR--which will be discussed again in a later chapter). The Georgetown professor suggested (ibid, p. 952) that the CFR was nothing but a front organization for J. P. Morgan and Company--international bankers linked to the European (Amalek-Edomite) Rothschilds.
Moreover, the left-wing National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for years was founded, financed and run by apparent Amalek-Edomite Jews with links to the Rothschilds. As long as the president of the NAACP was one of these Amalekites, the organization had money. But in recent years, Black nationalists have taken over and now the NAACP is broke and a group of little or no importance.
Nothing has changed these past 100 years or so since Morgan linked in with the US political left. The international bankers and super rich are still supplying the money, and though operating in the dark (behind the scenes), are still calling the shots. One can see this plainly in the case of the environmental movement (as was covered in former chapters herein), as well as in the entire Socialist and humanist endeavors.
Big Unions as Well
Big unions (which are also corporations) are another powerful force in American politics, not only with their control over the rank and file, but recently with their big bucks to finance elections. Moreover, many of the union leaders are Amalek-Edomites with links to the Rothschilds or Bronfmans.
Otherwise, even the Christian non-Edomite leaders have also sold out to the big money interests. After all, union bosses, like political leaders, need dollars and media coverage to win their union elections.
Since the big unions and big corporations are getting their money, support and direction from the same super rich sources, there generally is no conflict between American labor and management, although the controlled media tries to paint such an image.
True, the workers always want more money for less work (which is what their union bosses publicly pitch). But when the chips are down, the big boys behind the scenes really call the shots for both management and labor.
If there was a problem with the unions, the fat cats would merely close their American factories and move them overseas--which is what they have been doing regularly as a result of the GATT and NAFTA treaties (that were promoted and financed by the super rich internationalists calling the shots).
The Sell Out
Please note that the big unions didn’t like these treaties (benefiting corporate America, Wall Street and the fat cats), but offered no “real” public opposition to them. Why? Because the big boys calling the shots wanted them, the union bosses and left wing press had little to say in opposition. They knew where their bread was buttered.
By the way, the unions have millions of dollars available to enter the media markets for political advertising in the regular US elections. However, when it came time for the GATT and NAFTA schemes to become law, they turned and looked the other way and refused to spend any appreciable money or launch any colorable union efforts to defeat those treaties.
Why? Well again, the union bosses take orders from the plutocrats, like everybody else in the United States. The money crowd wanted those agreements passed for their own purposes. Consequently, the union bosses had more loyalty to the fat cats than they did to the American workers who elected them and paid their salaries and benefits from union dues.
Other Organizations Too
Beyond the fantastic strength of big business corporations and big unions (all of which are controlled from behind the scenes by the money power), note must be taken of a host of various associations, political action groups (PACs) and on and on for their enormous power.
While all of these various entities are not necessarily controlled directly by the super rich, most assuredly are. But even in those instances where a group is organized as a political power advocacy (like the Christian right), and which theoretically answer to certain private citizens who organized it, the organization must toe the line to the wishes of the super rich (who own and control the national media forces).
Consequently, if a group doesn’t properly mesh with the overall politically correct objectives and goals of the fat cats, rest assured that the national media will crucify it, as often as possible. Though a numbers of examples can be cited to illustrate this point, one can immediately think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Muslims and the National Rifle Association.
In the last several years, has anyone ever seen a favorable news report in the national media about any of these politically incorrect organizations? Of course, any news reported on them will be bad news or it will be slanted and twisted in such a way that it will seem to be bad news.
The tragedy is that most organizations (if they are politically correct and are either owned or controlled by the big boys or dance to the tune of the fat cats) wield enormous political power. It is large organizations, corporations, unions, associations, PACs, etc which pretty well call the shots in American politics--both nationally and locally.
Chapter 331--Politics II
The Dilemma
There appears to be a possible solution to the problem of financing American elections, although no politician would dare publicly endorse it or support it since the super rich calling the shots want the status quo to continue. To understand a solution, one must start with some comprehension of the present problem.
The existing dilemma is that the big boys like and support the present democratically elected two party system which allows them to own and control the prostitute politicians of both major parties (because the voting public is easy to manipulate and control).
In fact, they like this present US system, so much so, that they are doing their level best to impose this precise, same system on various foreign governments, as well, all over the world as a prelude to an eventual dictatorial world government (once the pecking order is established among the super rich to see who will be the world’s governor).
Nations and peoples are immediately condemned and attacked by the controlled world press whenever some foreigners want some other system.
The big boys have been working overtime to promote governing democracies which can be elected by an uninformed and gullible public--motivated, influenced and largely focused by persuasive media and educational forces (connected to and controlled by the super rich--to be proven in subsequent comments).
Hypocrite Politicians
The benefits of a controlled democratic government are quite manifest. As long as the voters ignorantly believe that they are the people who determine an election and the election winners, they are far less likely of rising up in rebellion and revolt against those elected leaders, regardless of what those leaders do or who they really serve and answer to.
By having a voting system, voters will be more submissive and accept whatever the politicians dictate. This reality can be demonstrated in many ways. Take the case of big government spending. Traditionally and almost without exception, the collective voters are opposed to big government spending.
Politicians generally run on a platform of reducing or controlling spending. Many come out and label themselves as “fiscal conservatives” to get elected.
Once elected, most politicians ignore their platforms and promises to the voters. They know that the public quickly forgets things and that they will never be held accountable for the lies which they told to get elected (that is, unless the controlled media should decide to constantly point out those lies, shortcomings and failures to the electorate--as happened with Richard Nixon).
Consequently, politicians have one primary fear--and that’s to not upset the media and public education structure (to be discussed more in later comments). Of course, it goes without saying that above all, politicians are just in no mood to take on the people who own and/or control the American media and educational systems.
Media Power of the Super Rich
Robert McChesney, a former publisher and professor at the University of Illinois, confirms the obvious when he said that the US media is owned by “a handful of huge firms controlled by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. They make billions providing a product that services the needs of the 200 largest advertisers” and report news not for the national interest, but for their bottom line (Dec 4, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 2).
In this regard, the giant media corporations (like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Gannett Newspapers, Knight Ridder newspapers, Washington Post, etc) are thus largely owned or at least controlled by the super rich dynasties ruling America through corporate stock ownership (to be more fully described in later chapters herein).
Though most persons may not realize it, but many or most of the local radio and TV stations and newspapers are owned and/or controlled by the same big media giants. A few newspaper chains own most of the large US daily newspapers.
The later chapters will assess much of this control in the vein of Amalekite ownership and control in some detail (in the sense of how the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters seem to be the primary block of fat cats controlling America in the early 21st century). Certainly, the Amalekites are in the driver’s seat in terms of the controlled US national media (as will be subsequently proven).
While the average Joe on the street may own some stock in the big corporate media companies, be assured that the controlling stock is essentially held by various bankers, who answer to the super rich dynasties. Stock ownership by the little people is extremely limited, in comparison with what the fat cats own and/or control through their Wall Street investment bankers, bank trust departments, etc.
Of course, the big boys like the ability to use their limited liability corporations to raise vast sums of money from the public and then to go on to influence and focus public opinion which is precisely what has been happening for decades now.
Controlling the Future for Politicians
Not only do the fat cats supply the money and media coverage to elect prostitute politicians, but they also exercise control over the politician’s future re-elections and even ability for incumbent politicians to stay in office at any given moment in time. The media and educational forces wield an inordinate amount of power to influence ignorant and uninformed voters in a democracy.
Therefore, big money forces not only buy politicians outright, as suggested, but they can effectively buy votes and the collective voters through the educational structure and media exploitation of the general public. This has been happening for years now in America and in the sun worshipping West.
The Two Party System
Moreover, it is manifest that the super rich fat cats find the two party system the best (since they control both parties). First, two parties are easier to monitor and control than a multiplicity of parties. Hence, the people calling the shots go out of their way to prevent any third party from arising and having any influence in American elections. That’s why voting laws are designed to keep third party candidates off of the ballot.
With only two parties, the big boys are more able to control both of them and to control each of the two opposing candidates in any given election, as noted before.
Furthermore, the presence of two parties makes the voters think that there is a difference and that they are being given a choice--never understanding that there is no difference, conflict or division and the two choices are both pre-determined by the big boys calling the shots.
In the old USSR and other Communist countries, it was public law that all citizens had to vote. In some countries, it was so bad that records were kept and people who did not vote were subject to arrest and persecution. But the dilemma in those nations has been that there was only one party (the Communist party) and one list of candidates to vote for. There was no choice and the one party people always won.
The two party system is virtually the same thing in the modern US. There is no choice since the two parties are almost alike and answer to and serve the exact same plutocrats. Third parties and particularly politically incorrect third parties are purposely kept off of the ballots. The gullible public believes that they have a voting choice--when, in fact, they have no choice at all.
Enormous Power and Control
With their ownership and/or control of the huge media companies and with their vast resources to fund and finance the various PACs (Political Action Committees), the plutocrats are able to completely dominate and control all major American elections from the President, to the Senate, to the Congress, to the Governors and almost all of the others of interest to them.
Consequently, a person elected to the Congress from a rural district in a Southern or Western state is about as indebted to the fat cats as are people in New York. Once in Washington, these persons in Congress must effectively answer to the plutocrats first--before any consideration of their own wishes or the needs of their constituents.
Obviously, many issues are of little or no concern to the super rich. In those instances, it is probably true that the big boys back off and allow a Congressman to vote his conscious or vote the wishes of his constituents. But if there is an important issue facing the Congress, which the plutocrats have a position on, be assured that the collective Congress must deliver or the members will be in trouble.
It is this control feature which insures that when the chips are down, the President and leading members of Congress of both parties are almost always in total agreement when it comes to legislation affecting the fat cats. For example, take former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the succeeding Republican leadership, all of whom always joined in with Clinton to support legislation for the super rich.
The Republicans have always been in agreement with the Democrats when it comes time to send money all over the world to benefit the ruling plutocrats. They may disagree and argue over petty things of little importance (like automobile speed limit laws on the highways, etc). But when the chips are down, they join together to support the plutocrats who own them.
The Enron Failure
A classic illustration of the subservience of both parties came up in the winter of 2001-2002 and the bankruptcy motion of the Enron Corporation, the seventh largest corporation in America. The problem manifested itself in early 2002 when several members of Congress and the Senate decided to investigate the collapse (where fraud and corruption were in clear evidence).
Perhaps one of the motivational aspects of some of these investigations is the fact that Enron contributed $650,000 to George W. Bush’s political campaign in 2000 (Jan 18, 2002, “The Week,” p. 3). Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay met privately with Vice President Cheney six times in 2001, in helping to draft the administration’s energy plans. Of course, the donations to Bush and the Republicans in 2000 paid off.
Democrats Too
Some of the Democrats thought that they could attack Bush on these issues and an investigation would help in their attack.
But there were factors which were rarely discussed. Enron was never partial in its distribution of campaign funds. A discussion on the Michael Savage radio talk show noted that besides Bush and Cheney, Enron also donated money to 71 senators and 156 congressmen. Both parties were heavily involved in these bribes and pay-offs.
Enron doled out $2.4 million in the 2000 elections to both parties (Jan 25, 2002, “The Week,” p. 2). The Amalekite Senator Chucky Schumer (D-NY) received huge pay-offs from Enron.
While Slick Clinton was at the White House, Enron donated $100,000 to the Democrats for Clinton’s inaugural party (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 9); and Slick promptly helped to reward the company with a $3 billion contract. Over three years, Enron shelled out $420,000 to the Democrat party (ibid, p. 9).
In fact, Enron’s chairman and CEO (Kenneth Lay) met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore at the Oval Office in the White House and stayed at the White House some eleven times (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 9).
Soon, Enron had access to the Clinton Administration’s highest levels of office--at the US State Department and the US Department of Commerce. Both of these agencies helped Enron get highly lucrative business deals (ibid, p. 9). The Export-Import Bank even gave Enron over $600,000 for one of its deals (ibid, p. 9).
The fraud and corruption involving Enron came about partly because fat cat accounting firms and securities’ companies shelled out millions to Senators and Congressmen in Clinton’s early years to have Congress pass a law to limit the liability of lawyers and accountants (Feb 1, 2002, “The Week,” p. 3). Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and the Democrat Party got $868,000 of this money.
Thus, will anything come out of the present investigations in the Enron debacle? No, of course not. The people doing the investigations are crooks themselves. They are not about to have any real disclosures of the skullduggery which went on in the back rooms for all the money that Enron and the other fat cats have shelled out over the years.
Succeeding chapters herein will discuss this Enron debacle further and focus upon the damage control operations initiated to be sure that the public was pacified and that the offices of Enron and Arthur Anderson (Enron’s auditing firm) would not suffer any serious set-backs.
Gore-Lieberman on Hollywood
In the 2000 presidential campaign, the Gore-Lieberman team came out with a barrage of complaints against Hollywood for making so many violent films to sell to children in the past few years. Gore publicly started hollering about laying down an ultimatum to make Hollywood stop this practice if he was elected president.
This is all interesting and especially in view of the fact that the fat cats in Hollywood (like the Amalekite Jews who control Universal Studios, Disney, Time-Warner, etc--to be proven in later chapters) were all major money contributors to the Democrats/Gore. In fact, the Gore-Lieberman people had just collected $13.5 million in contributions from Hollywood fat cats--just before Gore’s assault on Hollywood violence.
Following his verbal attack on Hollywood violence, Gore went to New York City on Sep 14, 2000, and picked up another $6.5 million in contributions from the movie industry. In a time chronology of what happened, it would seem strange that if Gore and Lieberman’s words meant anything--that just before they were uttered, Hollywood dished out $13.5 million and then another $6.5 just after they were spoken.
Like Michael Reagan said on his radio program in early September and again in mid September 2000--does anyone actually believe that Gore would take action to hurt the hands that were feeding him with money (to the tune of $20 million)? Well, the answer is obviously no.
Gore was not going to take any actions against Hollywood which had been putting up the money to try to elect him. The Hollywood people were not stupid. They correctly understood that the Gore-Lieberman words meant nothing. It was all a farce to get votes from the gullible goyim. Nothing would change with Gore’s election. Hollywood understood this. It’s the voters who lacked comprehension about the real world.
A Solution?
A solution on US elections might be really simple. First, it could be mandatory and public law that politicians can only raise money from individual people in the district, state or area where they are running for election.
Soft money should be very limited or outlawed--as the 2002 campaign financing reform bill, signed by Bush in March 2002, will attempt to do. But this bill is not the panacea it was built up to be since many loopholes remain to allow the fat cats to beat the system through personal gifts and the power of the controlled media.
One of the interesting features of this bill was that it will limit any group of individuals from pooling money to use in attack ads against incumbents within 60 days of an election.
While some of this sounds good, the clever people in Congress who wrote this bill stuck this feature in which helps incumbents avoid the problem of facing attack ads just before an election (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 4). Manifestly, this provision protects the incumbents in office--which is precisely what the present incumbents all wanted.
Virtually everyone above the idiot or imbecile level in America understands that the public’s memory span is very limited--certainly no more than three months. This 60-day restriction means that ads exposing the corruption and dishonesty of incumbent politicians will generally be long forgotten by the time of the elections.
Anyway, if some of these simple issues (as cited above, and below) were addressed and dealt with, Congressmen and Senators would be elected by the people of their districts or states and not by fat cat bankers on Wall Street.
More
Second, the idea of using public money to finance political campaigns is ludicrous. The present laws should be scrapped and there should be no further motion to take tax money and funnel it to political candidates. The problem here is that if there is a funneling of tax money to politicians and political parties, only the “politically correct” parties and candidates will get the money. It will always be unfairly administered.
Third, the present purposeful efforts by politicians and government entities to keep third parties off of ballots should end. Any reasonable presence of politically incorrect thinking should have the same opportunities for the ballot box as the politically correct, two major parties.
Fourth, the right to free speech in the US Constitution (as interpreted, in connection with political matters) correctly should not (and does not) apply to PACs, corporations (including labor unions) and/or state created organizations.
In other words, free speech (with the ability to give or spend money on political causes, directly or indirectly) appears to be limited to private individuals (in the US Constitution) and not to corporations or entities artificially created by the state (to include corporate labor unions and non profit entities and foundations).
Even law dictionaries and Supreme Court rulings recognize that the Bill of Rights pertain to natural individual persons and not to artificial persons, like corporations. Consequently, corporations do not have any automatic freedom of speech or freedom of the press of any other so-called freedoms. They are totally subject to the whim of the state (government) for their existence.
Corporations Are Not Natural Citizens
Corporations are not the same thing as private, individual citizens are in terms of the Constitution (although various state laws have attempted to make them the same). Corporations are nothing but pieces of paper artificially created by the state. It is inconceivable that the founders of the US intended for corporations to gain power over America and operate with the same rights and privileges as private, individual citizens.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the inalienable rights of a free man in the Declaration of Independence, he certainly did not include corporations as having those inalienable rights. It seems to be total folly for a state to pass a law granting those rights to corporations, as if they were people and human.
Thus, donations and political advertising should be limited to individual citizens living in the district or area where the politician is running for office.
With the big corporations, unions, foundations, organized lobbies, banks, activist groups, political action committees, etc, all out of the picture, the average, private, American citizens would then be the true financiers (electors) of the politicians.
Legally established donation limits of expenditures (single or otherwise and certainly with full disclosure) could also be considered optionally (as they are presently), if they are constitutional. Perhaps some distinction might be necessary between politicians, political parties and issue oriented advertising. But this can be addressed and certainly limited in the case of state created corporations.
Why should giant unions, banks, PACs and multi-national corporations, with their basis in a state authorized charter (a piece of paper), have the same free political speech as individual private citizens do personally or in sole proprietor businesses?
Ostensibly, the 2002 campaign financing reform law will help to rein in the abuse of corporations. However, the way big money operates this hoped for future will never see daylight since the big boys will get around the law some way. And tragically, the law never addressed the giant media corporations which are the most powerful and influential of all in controlling American elections.
Something Can Be Done
Of course, questions must come up over the role of the just mentioned media corporations and the Constitutional freedom of the press. As long as states authorize and charter corporations, it is probable that the big media corporations will be able to exercise some freedom of the press--because of their power and the unwillingness of politicians to take them on or to limit them in any way.
As discussed above, corporations are not natural persons and do not actually possess any of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. There is correctly no freedom of the press for CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC or any of the other corporate media entities. Yet, they are so powerful that governments will grant them freedom of the press.
However, some legislative action can be taken on this matter to limit their powers. Since the first amendment is focused upon the “Congress of the United States” (in its very wording), one can make the case that actions of the states is not covered. If so, surely the individual states can rein in the power of corporations (to include media corporations).
In all cases, and certainly in terms of the press, opposing views (on any issue currently in the political arena or before Congress) would seem to be entitled to free (equal) media time from any media company which publicly supports or promotes a current political issue in some public fashion. This can be legislated easily enough.
If the giant media companies had to give free time and media coverage to contrary positions when they advocate, suggest, imply or support a position in their programming or reporting, it certainly would open the door for them to exercise some restraint and caution when engaging in their biased and yellow journalism.
More on Corporate Realities
Moreover, there should be some expressed concern over the whole idea of the corporate form of organization which is totally unscriptural (as discussed elsewhere herein). Why should the state allow and authorize these giant corporations (to include unions, businesses, foundations, etc) to exist and particularly in the context of them molding and directing public opinion as they do.
In mentioning the large corporations, one must remember that they are nothing but pieces of paper owned and controlled by behind the scenes, major stockholders or members. Somewhere behind the scenes, a few, rich, powerful people control, manage and direct the whole focus of all large corporations--including media corporations.
Because the super rich fat cats own or control the big media corporations (which are granted freedom of speech and of the press as if they were private, individual citizens), it means that the big boys are able to use their corporate powers to form, mold and manipulate public opinion for their own profit, gain and domination purposes, as noted above.
And they do this every time they engage in yellow “news” reporting and commentary to put over their wicked views (as described in previous chapters).
The Israeli Situation
The political situation in the modern state of Israel is worth looking at to show that even a system with some good points can go wrong and be sadly abused by the cunning and conniving of the super rich.
The “Jerusalem Post” of February 11, 2000 (p. 1, 14), had a story by Larry Derfner on “Cats and Cream” which assessed a case of some alleged skullduggery involving the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his administration that had come to power in 1999 on the heels of a defeat for the conservative government of Binyamin Netanyahu.
This corruption story will be assessed below. But first, the article mentioned the Israeli “Party Funding law” which imposes some definite limits on financial giving in the Israeli elections. Per the report, foreigners (outsiders) cannot give anything to candidates. There is a furthermore limit to what individual Israelis can give.
As Derfner points out, fat cat millionaires have to find a way around the law to support their favorite candidates. Evidently, the super rich do find ways around the law just as they do in America and in other nations.
However, this Israeli limitation on foreigners and amounts of campaign contributions is important to look at. Tragically, in the US, a few fat cats on Wall Street (who own or control the nation’s media) pretty well call the shots. It is pathetic that outsiders can elect people in any US state. For sure, there should be limitations on outsiders electing politicians in any democratic election.