Even a year ago, weeks could go by between major Disclosure events. Now there are multiple signals per week. Are they trying to tell us something? Does a bear sit in the woods?
BUILDING UP TO SOMETHING
In the last few months, things have gotten really wonderful for the Disclosure crowd — to the point where I don’t even have enough time to try to track and write about all of it, while juggling my other responsibilities. This includes:
Multiple, blatant UFO sightings, some of which shut down entire airports;
Major press conferences with multiple eyewitnesses announcing that nuclear missile installations have been powered down by ‘flying saucers’ which otherwise were not aggressive, and may in fact have our best interests in mind;
A huge number of “life is highly abundant in the universe” scientific articles;
This is definitely not ‘smoke and mirrors.’ This is a clear, deliberate and concerted effort. And it’s building up to something.
“THE EVENT”
Among all of these various elements, the NBC television show “The Event” stands out as particularly provocative. Here you have a television show about a black President — who looks and sounds just like Obama — stumbling into the truth of human ETs soon after he takes office.
In this story, some 97 human-looking ETs crashed in a spaceship in Alaska in the 1940s, and were held hostage at ‘Camp Inostranka’ ever since. The president learns this truth, meets the people and plans an open Disclosure in a live national press conference.
Right before he discloses these secrets to humanity, he suffers a 9/11-style attack by a hijacked passenger airliner. The plane then pops through a wormhole right before it hits the ground and ends up in a remote desert, apparently by ET influence.
All the passengers onboard the plane initially survive, but they then end up dying — or so we think. The analysis of the bodies at the crash site shows that they appeared to have been running from something — perhaps a beam weapon.
The government plans on ‘distressing’ the bodies to make it look like they all died in a fiery crash, which they intend to fabricate for a cover-up.
THE WEIRD VIRUS
Then, in very disturbing zombie-like fashion, the bodies all end up re-animating in a secret military bunker. At first they seem to be fine, but then they all start hemorrhaging blood from their noses and mouths.
We learn that they have a weird virus, which they were given by the ET opposition leader — and they will be dead within 24 hours unless the President frees all the ET detainees at Inostranka, in exchange for the vaccine.
Fighting for the lives of the survivors, the president wrestles with the opposition leader, who claims he will use this same weapon on whole cities of Americans if the 97 detainees are not freed.
The president ends up getting the antidote by threatening to execute all of the ETs if the opposition leader does not produce the serum first.
THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE
This Monday night’s show effectively picks up at this point in the storyline — and I’m leaving quite a bit out of it here. Though it is a bit clumsy at certain points, and I don’t find the portrayal of the president and his entourage particularly believable, the overall execution is quite good.
There does appear to be a lot of fear-mongering about human-looking ETs in this show, such as their apparent willingness to use terrorist tactics to get their way.
Nonetheless, it also seems clear that we are being given a message that they are not all bad people — only a small number of them.
Furthermore, the seemingly positive female leader of the ETs (who is obviously cast to look and sound very similar to the heroic female president in Battlestar Galactica) alludes to an upcoming ‘Event’ without elaboration at this point in the story.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
In the title, the second “E” in “Event” is reversed. This highlights the ‘V’ in the middle — as in the previous show ‘V’, which was also about human-looking ETs. It also encourages us to pick out the word ‘EVE.’
Remember that this is all part of a Processed Release of Information (PRI) program, and the underlying body of information to be disclosed has been in place for thousands of years. I discuss this in my radio show with William Henry, linked below.
I feel it is safe to assume that in this TV series, “The Event” will involve a certain amount of cataclysmic activity on the Earth. It should also upgrade our DNA at the same time — leading to a new humanity.
A new Eve.
This would then allow the show to go in the direction of “Heroes” and other such programs where people begin developing ‘powers’.
If that’s really where this is going, then “The Event” may well be the most blatant, in-your-face, one-stop-shop Disclosure mechanism ever put out by the media — at least thus far.
Another quite interesting and revealing Ben post here. It sounds from what he reports here, that we are in the last act of this dark old global soap opera. Ben gives some of the history behind much of this, from his understanding, and lays it out for all to see. The fact that he puts so much of this type of information out there tells me he knows he is “protected” (whatever that means) and that this dark-oriented group is pretty much out of it, power-wise. Others have likewise reported such (SaLuSa, Montague Keen, Wanderer).
As always, suggest using your Higher Discretion as you read.
Highlights
…911… attacks…was an esoteric battle in a war for control of the global financial system… the 311 nuclear tsunami attack against Japan was also part of this battle.
…A critical mass of military, law-enforcement, banking and other officials has been identified and is about to arrest the culprits behind these and other attacks.
…global…accounts…backed by the pooled assets of many of the world’s governments… meant to be used to finance peaceful development… were mostly misspent on war by a group of misguided oligarchs concentrated in the financial, military, oil and (to a lesser extent) pharmaceutical industries.
…the top cabalists include George Bushes Jr.&Sr, Henry (Heinz) Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Senator J. Rockefeller, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Carlucci, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the Pope.
When U.S. President John F. Kennedy agreed with the 77-nation non-aligned group to create US treasury dollars to finance the development of the third world…, he was killed.
The problem with this fake war on terror is that it required the rest of the world to continue financing the US military industrial complex.
When Putin kicked the cabalists out of Russia, suddenly the cabal’s control over oil, and thus their stranglehold over much of the world’s economy, began to collapse.
However, the entire [cabal] plan began to crumble after 2006 when the Chinese began to stop buying US Treasury certificates.
…in June of 2009…two Japanese carrying $134.5 billion of various bonds were seized in Italy and had [them] taken… the trail led to cabal members located at the very top of the Western power structure.
Until this mess can be sorted out, a freeze has been put out at the very highest levels of the global financial system. This is what is ultimately behind the recent financial turmoil seen around the world.
The best intelligence available says…many cabal members will be put in jail while [thoss] judged to have sincerely worked with the greater good in mind, will be allowed to stay free…
There will also be some sort of announcements to the global public at large about what has been going on. Humanity will then enter uncharted waters.
Although a decade of research has proven a high level cabal at the top of the Western power structure was behind the 911 terror attacks, few realize the attack was an esoteric battle in a war for control of the global financial system. Fewer still realize the 311 nuclear tsunami attack against Japan was also part of this battle. However, a critical mass of military, law-enforcement, banking and other officials has identified and is about to arrest the culprits behind these and other attacks. The search for the ultimate culprits led to something known as the global collateral accounts and a high level group of conspirators that illegally took them over. These accounts are backed by the pooled assets of many of the world’s governments and were meant to be used to finance peaceful development. Instead, they were mostly misspent on war by a group of misguided oligarchs concentrated in the financial, military, oil and (to a lesser extent) pharmaceutical industries.
According to a US intelligence group that has been on this case for some time, the top cabalists include George Bushes Jr.&Sr, Henry (Heinz) Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Senator J. Rockefeller, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Carlucci, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the Pope. Of course there were many thousands of working below them or else above them in the shadows who were in on the scheme. The intelligence and police agencies of the world have now obtained the codes for the global collateral accounts and can trace in detail who has been using these funds, and for what purpose, ever since they were hijacked in the 1950’s.
These table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.
Taibbi: Obama And Geithner Are Acting Like Lehman Executives Before The Crash
Strongly recommend this piece at theHuffington Post by Jeff Connaughton, a former aide to Senator Ted Kaufman. Jeff is one of the smartest guys on the Hill and is particularly strong on issues surrounding Wall Street and the regulatory system. In this piece, he takes apart the oft-stated mantra that what Wall Street firms did during and after the crisis was maybe unethical, but not illegal.
He takes particular aim at Barack Obama, who recently tossed that line out on 60 Minutes in what I thought was one of the real low moments of his presidency. Here’s Jeff’s take:
Speaking in Kansas on December 6, [Obama] said, “Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender.” Just five days later on 60 Minutes, he said, “Some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street wasn’t illegal.” Which is it? Have there been no prosecutions because Wall Street acted legally (albeit unethically)? Or did Wall Street repeatedly violate major anti-fraud laws (and should thus find itself in the dock)?
The President is confusing “legal” with “difficult to prosecute successfully.”
The notion that what Wall Street firms did was merely unethical and not illegal is not just mistaken but preposterous: most everyone who works in the financial services industry understands that fraud right now is not just pervasive but epidemic, with many of the biggest banks committing entire departments to the routine commission of fraud and perjury – every single one of the major banks, for instance, devotes significant manpower to robosigning affidavits for foreclosures and credit card judgments, acts which are openly and inarguably criminal.
Banks and hedge funds routinely withhold derogatory information about the instruments they sell, they routinely trade on insider information or ahead of their own clients’ orders, and corrupt accounting is so rampant now that industry analysts have begun to figure in estimated levels of fraud in their examinations of the public disclosures of major financial companies.
Beyond that, as Jeff points out, Obama is simply not telling the truth about the supposedly insufficient penalties available to regulators. Employing the famous“mistakes were made” use of the passive tense, Obama copped out in his December 6 speech by saying that “penalties are too weak.” As Jeff points out, what Obama should have said is that “the penalties my own regulators chose to dish out were too weak”:
Moreover, the President is misleading us when he says that Wall Street firms violate anti-fraud law because the penalties are too weak. Repeat financial fraudsters don’t pay relatively paltry — and therefore painless — penalties because of statutory caps on such penalties. Rather, regulatory officials, appointed by Obama, negotiated these comparatively trifling fines. This week, the F.D.I.C. settled a suit against Washington Mutual officials for just $64 million, an amount that will be covered mostly by insurance policies WaMu took out on behalf of executives, who themselves will pay just $400,000. And recently a federal judge rejected the S.E.C.’s latest settlement with Citigroup, an action even the Wall Street Journal called “a rebuke of the cozy relationship between regulators and the regulated that too often leaves justice as an orphan.”
What makes Obama’s statements so dangerous is that they suggest an ongoing strategy of covering up the Wall Street crimewave. There is ample evidence out there that the Obama administration has eased up on prosecutions of Wall Street as part of a conscious strategy to prevent a collapse of confidence in our financial system, with the expected 50-state foreclosure settlement being the landmark effort in the cover-up, intended mainly to bury a generation of fraud. Here’s how Jeff puts it:
In Ron Suskind’s book, Confidence Men, he quotes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as saying, “The confidence in the system is so fragile still… a disclosure of a fraud… could result in a run, just like Lehman.” The Obama Administration is pushinghard for a 50-state settlement with the major banks for their fraudulent foreclosure practices, even though several state attorneys general have rejected this approach because, in their view, it would shield too much wrongdoing. Regrettably, Obama’s top officials and lawyers seem more eager to restore the financial sector to health than establish criminal accountability among the executives who were in charge.
In other words, Geithner and Obama are behaving like Lehman executives before the crash of Lehman, not disclosing the full extent of the internal problem in order to keep investors from fleeing and creditors from calling in their chits. It’s worth noting that this kind of behavior – knowingly hiding the derogatory truth from the outside world in order to prevent a run on the bank – is, itself, fraud!
This is exactly the mindset that led Lehman to the abuses of the ”Repo 105″ accounting trick, in which loans were disguised as revenues in order to prevent the outside world from knowing the dire state of the bank’s balance sheet.
Now Obama and Geithner are engaged in the same sort of activity, only they’re trying to prevent a run not on an individual bank, but the entire American financial services sector. Geithner seems really to believe that if fraud were aggressively policed, and the world made aware of the incredible extent of the illegality in our markets, that international confidence in the American financial sector would plummet and our economy would suffer – and suffer, incidentally, on Barack Obama’s watch.
Better, apparently, the Band-Aid the problem now, and let the real mess happen later on, on someone else’s watch, or at least in a second term, when there’s no need to worry about re-election.
Of course, this is exactly the wrong way to go about things. If Geithner and Obama really wanted to convince the world that America’s markets weren’t broken, they would effectively police fraud, and by extension prove to everybody that at the very least, our regulatory system is not broken.
But by taking a dive on fraud, and orchestrating mass cover-ups like the coming foreclosure settlement fiasco, what they’re doing instead is signaling to the world that not only are our financial markets corrupt, but our government is broken as well.
The problem with companies like Lehman and Enron is that their executives always think they can paper over illegalities by committing more crimes, when in fact all they’re usually doing is snowballing the problem so completely out of control that there’s no longer any chance of fixing things, thereby killing the only chance for survival they ever had.
This is exactly what Obama and Geithner are doing now. By continually lying about the extent of the country’s corruption problems, they’re adding fraud to fraud and raising such a great bonfire of lies that they probably won’t ever be able to fix the underlying mess.
If they looked at the world like public servants, and not like corporate executives, they’d understand that the only way out is to come clean. That they don’t look at things that way should tell people quite a lot.
Ann Barnhardt and I (Warren Pollock) have an open conversation organized to provide background to this crisis, the setting of legal precedent, netting, settlement, and future trends including a potential bank holiday. We talk about MF Global as it applies to savings and commercial banking, brokerage, insurance, and commodities. We talk about numeric impossibility of solving the problem, incest between government and finance, having the victim of the crisis pay rather than the fraudster. We explain how the MF Global bankruptcy process will define how customer funds will be treated in a bank holiday. We talk about the idea of having an honest bank holiday to root out fraud vs an economic crisis which plays to looting and criminal activity of vested interest.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of “national security” and concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father’s spurious activities during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, those records are no longer accessible to the public.1 The Russian coup plot was discussed in June 1991 when Yeltsin visited with Bush in conjunction with his visit to the United States. On that same visit, Yeltsin met discreetly with Gerald Corrigan, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve.2
Because of numerous Presidential Executive Orders, the ethically questionable Project Hammer was deemed legal. Of course, even Hitler’s acts were “lawful,” as he had manipulated the laws to accommodate his actions. Many of Reagan’s executive orders were actually authored by Vice President Bush or his legal associates, and it is possible that Project Hammer was created by Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey, who had directed OSS operations through Alan Dulles in Europe during World War II. Prior to his OSS affiliation, Casey worked for the Board of Economic Warfare which allegedly targeted “Hitler’s economic jugular.”3 Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles, was the Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. He was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.
Project Hammer was staffed with CIA operatives and others associated with the National Security apparatus. Covert channels were already in place as a result of other illegal Bush activities. Thus, it was a given (1) that the project would use secret, illegal funds for unapproved covert operations, and (2) that the American public and Congress would not be informed about the illegal actions perpetrated in foreign countries. The first objective was allegedly to crush Communism, a growing political philosophy and social movement that was initially funded by the usual group of international bankers who now supported their demise. To this end, the “Vulcans,” under George H. W. Bush, waged war against the Soviet Union.4
The Return of the Vulcans
In their reincarnation in the administration of George W. Bush, the Vulcans functioned as a supposedly benign group, led by Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) member Condoleezza Rice, who attempted to augment and compensate for the Bush’s lack of experience and education concerning foreign policy during his presidential campaign. Rice had been President George H. W. Bush’s Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor in the National Security Council during the Soviet Union’s dissolution and during the German reunification (July 1, 1990). The resurrected Vulcan group included Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. Other key campaign figures included Dick Cheney, George P. Shultz and Colin Powell, all influential but not actually a part of the Vulcan Group. All of these people, associated with the George H. W. Bush administration, returned to powerful, strategic positions in George W. Bush’s administration.
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have been accused of being agents for the Israeli government. Investigations by Congress and the FBI have substantiated those allegations. Zakheim and his family were heavily involved in Yeshivat Sha’alvim, an educational organization in which students are taught to render absolute commitment to the State of Israel.5
Many of these individuals were also members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which was established in the spring of 1997 with the intention of promoting American Global leadership at any cost. The chairman and co-founder was William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol (CFR), considered the godfather of neo-conservatism which promotes the ideas of Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss, a noted Zionist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Kristol’s co-founder was Robert W. Kagan (CFR). Kristol is also the editor and co-founder, along with John Podhoretz, of the Weekly Standard Magazine, established September 17, 1995 and owned by Rupert Murdoch until August 2009. This “conservative” magazine is edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes and promotes Middle East warfare and a huge military budget, a mentality that infects the most popular “conservative” talk show radio hosts. Kristol is a trustee for the Manhattan Institute which was founded by CIA Director William Casey and was staffed with former CIA officers.
The Vulcans had almost limitless financing from a cache known by several names – the Black Eagle Trust, the Marcos gold, Yamashita’s Gold, the Golden Lily Treasure, or the Durham Trust. Japan, under Emperor Hirohito, appointed a brother, Prince Chichibu, to head Golden Lily, established in November 1937 before Japan’s infamous Rape of Nanking, to accompany and follow the military. The Golden Lily operation carried out massive plunder throughout Asia and included an army of jewelers, financial experts and smelters.6 While the Nazis also engaged in plundering the countries they invaded, they were not as organized and methodical as the Japanese. After the Allied blockade, Golden Lily headquarters were moved from Singapore to Manila where 175 storage sites were built by slave laborers and POWs. Billions of dollars worth of gold and other plundered treasures were stockpiled in these underground caverns, some of which were discovered by the notorious Cold Warrior, Edward G. Lansdale who directed the recovery of some of the vaults. Truman and subsequent presidents, without congressional knowledge, have used those resources to finance the CIA’s chaotic clandestine activities throughout the world. Much of the Middle East chaos is financed by those pillaged funds. A tiny portion of that treasure was the source of Ferdinand Marcos’ vast wealth. Marcos worked with the CIA for decades using Golden Lily funds to bribe nations to support the Vietnam War. In return, Marcos was allowed to sell over $1 trillion in gold through Australian brokers.7
In July 1944, the leaders of forty-four nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to plan the post-war economy and to discuss organizing a global political action fund which would use the Black Eagle Trust ostensibly to fight communism, bribe political leaders, enhance the treasuries of U.S. allies, and manipulate elections in foreign countries and other unconstitutional covert operations. Certainly, those politicos who managed the funds also received financial benefits. This trust was headed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, assisted by John J. McCloy (later head of the World Bank) and Robert Lovett (later Secretary of Defense) and consultant Robert B. Anderson (later Secretary of the Treasury).8 Anderson later operated the Commercial Exchange Bank of Anguilla in the British West Indies and was convicted of running illegal offshore banking operations and tax evasion. Investors lost about $4.4 million. Consequently, he was sent to prison for a token amount of time, one month. He was also under house arrest for five years. He could have received a ten-year sentence but Judge Palmieri considered Anderson’s “distinguished service” to the country in the “top levels of Government.”9
Between 1945 and 1947 huge quantities of gold and platinum were deposited in prominent banks throughout the world. These deposits came to be known as the Black Eagle Trust. Swiss banks, because of their neutrality, were pivotal in maintaining these funds. These funds were allocated to fighting communism and paying bribes and fixing elections in places like Italy, Greece, and Japan.10 Stimson and McCloy, both retired from government service, continued their involvement in the management of the Black Eagle Trust. Robert B. Anderson, who toured the treasure sites with Douglas MacArthur, set up the Black Eagle Trust and later became a member of Eisenhower’s cabinet.11 In order to maintain secrecy about the Trust, Washington officials insisted that the Japanese did not plunder the countries they invaded. Japanese officials who wanted to divulge the facts were imprisoned or murdered in a way that made it look like suicide, a common CIA tactic.12 The Germans paid reparations to thousands of victims while the Japanese paid next to nothing. Military leaders who opposed foreign policies that embraced exploitation of third world countries were suicided or died from mysterious causes, which includes individuals such as George S. Patton, Smedley D. Butler and James V. Forrestal.
The Vulcan’s effort to crush Communism and end the Cold War was largely funded by that Japanese plunder. The Vulcans were resurrected when George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000, facilitated by election maneuvers, probably lots of payoffs, and Jeb Bush’s purge of Florida voters. They conducted other illegal operations, like securities fraud and money laundering. This entailed murder and false imprisonment to prevent penitent participants from divulging the activities of the group. During the process of accomplishing the main objective of destroying the Soviet Union, the operatives made massive profits. In September 1991, George H. W. Bush and Alan Greenspan, both Pilgrims Society members, financed $240 billion in illegal bonds to economically decimate the Soviet Union and bring Soviet oil and gas resources under the control of Western investors, backed by the Black Eagle Trust and supported later by Putin who for the right price purged certain oligarchs. The $240 billion in illegal bonds were apparently replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers.13 To conceal the clearance of $240 billion in securities, the Federal Reserve, within two months, increased the money supply to pre-9/11 numbers which resulted in the American taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion.14
The Takeover of Russia’s Oil Industry
BP Amoco became the largest foreign direct investor in Russia in 1997 when it paid a half-billion dollars to buy a 10 percent stake in the Russian oil conglomerate Sidanko. Then in 1999, Tyumen Oil bought Sidanko’s prize unit, Chernogorneft which allegedly made BP Amoco’s investment worthless. Tyumen offered to cooperate with BP Amoco on the development of Chernogorneft but BP Amoco was not interested.15 In October 1998, Halliburton Energy Services had entered into an agreement with Moscow-based Tyumen Oil Company (TNK). Their efforts were focused on the four western Siberia fields, the first one being the Samotlorskoye field.16 TNK has proven oil reserves of 4.3 billion barrels and possibly as many as 6.1 billion barrels, with crude oil production and refining capabilities of 420,000 barrels/day and 230,000 barrels/day, respectively. TNK markets gasoline through 400 retail outlets.17 In 2002 Halliburton and Sibneft, Russia’s fifth largest crude oil producer, signed an agreement. Sibneft will use Halliburton’s new technologies to improve well construction and processing while Halliburton directs all project management.18
Tyumenskaya Neftyanaya Kompaniya (Tyumen Oil Company) was established in 1995 by government decree. It is now TNK-BP, the leading Russian oil company and ranks among the top ten privately owned oil companies worldwide in terms of crude oil production. The company, formed in 2003, resulted from the merger of BP’s Russian oil and gas assets and the oil and gas assets of Alfa, Access/Renova group (AAR). BP and AAR each own fifty percent of TNK-BP. The shareholders of TNK-BP own almost fifty percent of Slavneft, a vertically integrated Russian oil company.19 This transaction was the biggest in Russian corporate history and was managed by Vladimir Lechtman, the Moscow partner for Jones Day, a global law firm with thirty offices and 2,200 lawyers worldwide. TNK-BP, Russia’s second-largest oil company employs almost 100,000 people and operates in Samotlor.20
Putin was financially rewarded by the collaborators and was happy to purge some annoying industrialists who stood in the way. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the manager of Yukos, the company that he built into Russia’s second-largest oil company after acquiring it for $168 million when his Bank MENATEP, the first privately owned but notoriously corrupt bank since 1917 and wiped out in August 1998, purchased it through a controversial government privatization auction in 1995. MENATEP was named as a defendant in the Avisma lawsuit which was filed on August 19, 1999.21 The bank may have facilitated the large-scale theft of Soviet Treasury funds before and following the USSR’s collapse in 1991.22 His company had borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from western banks.23 He was arrested on October 25, 2003 and sentenced in June 2005 to eight years on fraud and tax evasion charges. He was allegedly targeted as a political enemy by President Vladimir Putin who went after other big business owners who apparently made money by acquiring states assets. Yukos was sold piecemeal to pay off $28 billion in back tax charges. Yukos was seized and given to Rosneft.24
When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild assumed Khodorkovsky’s 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky’s directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney’s reign as CEO at Halliburton. Cheney, as President and CEO of Halliburton, automatically had an association with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR).25 In November 1997, Dick Chaney, in anticipation of imminent events, had appointed Edgar Ortiz as president of Halliburton Energy Services, their global division.26
The Yukos Oil Company merged with the smaller Sibneft Oil Company on October 3, 2003 which created Russia’s largest oil and gas business and the world’s forth-largest private oil company.27 On May 11, 2007 Halliburton announced they had made an agreement with the Tyumen State Oil and Gas University to open a new employee-training center in Russia to grow their business in that country and in the surrounding region. They are currently training students from five countries, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia and the United Kingdom.28 Halliburton was awarded a $33 million contract by TNK-BP to provide oil field services to develop the Ust-Vakh field in Western Siberia.29
September 11 – Black Op Cover-up
Three top securities brokers had offices in the World Trade Center, Cantor Fitzgerald, Euro Brokers and Garbon Inter Capital. Flight 11 struck just under the floors where Cantor Fitzgerald was located. Cantor Fitzgerald, with possible connections to the U.S. Intelligence apparatus, was America’s biggest securities broker and apparently the main target. Within minutes, an explosion in the North Tower’s vacant 23rd floor, right under the offices of the FBI and Garbon Inter Capital on the 25th floor caused a huge fire from the 22nd through the 25th floors. At the same time, there was an explosion in the basement of the North Tower.30 A vault in the North Tower basement held less than $1 billion in gold, much of which was reportedly moved before 9/11. However, the government had hundreds of billions of dollars of securities which were summarily destroyed. The Federal Reserve, untouched by the crisis at its downtown offices (as they had everything backed up to a remote location), assumed emergency powers that afternoon. The $240 billion in securities were electronically cleared.31 Then, at 9:03, Flight 175 slammed into the 78th floor of the South Tower just below the 84th floor where Euro Brokers were located.32 Brian Clark, the manager at Euro Brokers, heard numerous explosions, apparently unrelated to what he referred to as the oxygen-starved fire caused by the plane crash.
The September 11 attacks related to the financial improprieties during the preceding ten years which spurred at least nine federal investigations which were initiated in 1997-1998, about the same time that Osama bin Laden, after twenty years as a CIA asset, announced a fatwa against the U.S. The records of many of those investigations were held in the Buildings Six and Seven and on the 23rd floor of the North Tower. Those investigations were sure to reveal the black Eagle Trust shenanigans.33 Building Seven, not hit by a plane, collapsed at 5:20:33 p.m. but was vacated as early as 9:00 when evacuees claimed to see dead bodies and sporadic fires within the building.
By 2008 and even earlier the covert securities were worth trillions. The securities used to decimate the Soviets and end the Cold War were stored in certain broker’s vaults in the World Trade Center where they were destroyed on September 11, 2001. They would have come due for settlement and clearing on September 12, 2001.34 The federal agency investigating these bonds, the Office of Naval Intelligence was in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11. Renovations at the Pentagon were due to be completed on September 16, 2001. However, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the entity that often monitors war games, was hurriedly moved. If they were monitoring the simultaneous war games that morning, they would have realized that the games were used as a distraction from the actual assault. Whatever hit the pentagon struck the Navy Command Center and the offices of the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP).35 There were 125 fatalities in the Pentagon; thirty-one percent of them were people who worked in the Naval Command Center, the location of the Office of Naval Intelligence. Thirty-nine of the forty people who worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence died.36
On September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn’t account for $2.3 trillion, “We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.”37 It was forgotten the following morning. Accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts who were in the section of the Pentagon being renovated met their unexpected deaths. The destruction of accounting facts and figures will prevent discovery of where that money went. I am quite certain someone knows where it is. Certainly this is not merely gross incompetence but private seizure of public funds.38 At the time Rabbi Dov Zakheim was chief-financial officer for the Department of Defense.39 In 1993, Zakheim worked for SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor. His firm’s subsidiary, Tridata Corporation directed the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.40
Certain National Security officials who had participated in the Cold War victory in 1991 thus comprised the collateral damage of the Cold War. They, along with hundreds of innocent people were in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Their deaths were presumably required to conceal the existence of the Black Eagle Trust, along with the numerous illegal activities it had funded for over 50 years. This massive destruction, and the lost lives, constitutes a massive cover-up and continued lawlessness by the brotherhood of death, Skull and Bones, and their accomplices, the Enterprise.41 The Enterprise was established in the 1980s as a covert fascist Cold Warriors faction working with other groups like Halliburton’s private security forces and the Moonies. Citibank is connected to the Enterprise, along with all the CIA front banks, Nugen Hand and BCCI.
Double Dipping
Alvin B. “Buzzy” Krongard was elected Chief Executive Officer of Alexander Brown and Sons in 1991 and Chairman of the Board in 1994. Bankers Trust purchased Alexander Brown and Sons in 1997 to form BT Alex Brown. Krongard relinquished his investments in Alex Brown to Banker’s Trust as part of the merger. He became Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust where he personally interacted with wealthy clients who were intimately linked to drug money laundering. After a year of possible networking, Krongard joined (or as Michael Ruppert suggests, rejoined) the CIA in 1998 where his friend, Director George Tenet, concentrated his skills on private banking ventures within the elite moneyed community. Senate investigations verify that private banking firms frequently engage in money laundering from illicit drugs and corporate crime operations.42 On January 28, 2000 the Reginald Howe and GATA Lawsuit was filed which accused certain U.S. bullion banks of illegally dumping U.S. Treasury gold on the market. The lawsuit named Deutsche bank Alex Brown, the U.S. Treasury, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, and Citibank, Chase, as defendants. Gerald Corrigan was accused of having private knowledge of the scheme.43 Krongard became the Executive Director of the CIA, essentially the Chief Operating Officer, and the number three man on March 16, 2001. Krongard, while at the CIA, arranged for Blackwater’s Erik Prince to get his first contract with the U.S. government, and later joined its board.
Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert, estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed through the WTC computers before and during the disaster on September 11, 2001. A Deutsche Bank employee verified that approximately five minutes before the first plane hit the tower that the Deutsche Bank computer system in their WTC office was seized by an outside, unknown entity. Every single file was swiftly uploaded to an unidentified locality. This employee escaped from the building, but lost many of his friends. He knew, from his position in the company, that Alex Brown, the Deutsche Bank subsidiary participated in insider trading. Senator Carl Levin claimed that Alex Brown was just one of twenty prominent U.S. banks associated with money laundering.44
Andreas von Bülow, a Social Democratic Party member of the German parliament (1969-1994), was on the parliamentary committee on intelligence services, a group that has access to classified information. Von Bülow was also a member of the Schalck-Golodkowski investigation committee which investigates white-collar crime. He has estimated that inside trader profits surrounding 9/11 totaled approximately $15 billion.
Von Bülow told The Daily Telegraph “If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.” Further, he said, “They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence…they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation.” He also said, “I’m convinced that the US apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the [Washington] government’s refusal to present any proof whatsoever of what happened.”45
On September 26, CBS reported that the amount was more than $100 million and that seven countries were investigating the irregular trades. Two newspapers, Reuters and the New York Times, and other mainstream media reported that the CIA regularly monitors extraordinary trades and economic irregularities to ascertain possible criminal activities or financial assaults. In fact, the CIA uses specialized software, PROMIS, to scrutinize trades.46
Numerous researchers believe, with justification, that the transactions in the financial markets are indicative of foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, the attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon. One of the trades, for $2.5 million, a pittance compared to the total, went unclaimed. Alex Brown, once managed by Krongard, was the firm that placed the put options on United Airlines stock. President Bush awarded Krongard by appointing him as CIA Executive Director in 2004.47
Between September 6 and 7, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange received purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines and only 396 call options. If 4,000 of those options were purchased by people with foreknowledge, they would have accrued about $5 million. On September 10, the Chicago exchange received 4,516 put options on American Airlines compared to 748 calls. The implications are that some insiders might profit by about $4 million. These two incidents were wholly irregular and at least six times higher than normal.48
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company, who occupied floors 43-46, 56, 59-74 of the World Trade Center, Tower 2, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. The U.S. government never again mentioned the trade irregularities after October 12, 2001.49 Catastrophic events serve two purposes for the top criminal element in society – the perpetrators seize resources while their legislative accomplices impose burdensome restrictions on the citizens to make them more submissive and silent.
^ “Sioux City, Iowa, July 25, 2005 TomFlocco.com , According to leaked documents from an intelligence file obtained through a military source in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), on or about September 12, 1991 non-performing and unauthorized gold-backed debt instruments were used to purchase ten-year “Brady” bonds. The bonds in turn were illegally employed as collateral to borrow $240 billion–120 in Japanese Yen and 120 in Deutsch Marks–exchanged for U.S. currency under false pretenses; or counterfeit and unlawful conversion of collateral against which an unlimited amount of money could be created in derivatives and debt instruments…” from Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to White House 9/11 finance, Tom Flocco, tomflocco.com
^ Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001by E.P. Heidner, p. 45
^ Rumsfeld’s comments were on the Department of defense web site but have been understandably removed, http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.htm [Ed note: The full text of the speech can still be read at the defenselink.mil website; the URL was changed without a redirect]
^ Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001by E.P. Heidner, p. 28
^ Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247
^ Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that there are now “two Europes” following the United Kingdom’s refusal to support a new European Union (EU) treaty that was backed by all other twenty-six members of the economic bloc.
In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, Sarkozy also said that he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel did everything in their power to urge Britain to endorse the new treaty, which calls for increased fiscal and economic integration among EU members.
“But unfortunately, [now] there are clearly two Europes,” Sarkozy told the paper. “One is for greater solidarity and regulation between members while the other is attached to the logic of the single market.”
However, during the interview, Sarkozy maintained that Britain will remain an integral part of the EU.
“We need Britain and it would impoverish the EU if they were to leave,” he said.
“With London we share an attachment to nuclear energy and we have strong agreements on defense.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron has defended rejecting the treaty because he felt it would hurt Britain’s financial interests. Reportedly, Cameron sought to exempt UK financial services companies from certain new regulations and taxes that the treaty envisions — but Sarkozy and Merkel refused to do so.
“The crisis was brought about by a lack of financial regulation, and we could not accept what would be a step backwards. Europe must move towards greater regulation,” Sarkozy told Le Monde. Cameron explained his decision in a speech before the British Parliament. “We went seeking a deal at 27 [EU members] and I responded to the German and French proposal for treaty change in good faith, genuinely looking to reach an agreement at the level of the whole of the European Union with the necessary safeguards for Britain,” he told MPs.
“Those safeguards on the single market and on financial services were modest, reasonable and relevant.
However, Cameron is now coming under increasing fire for his veto of the treaty.
Olli Rehn, the EU’s Economic Affairs Commissioner, told reporters on Monday: “I regret very much that the UK was not willing to join the fiscal compact. I regret it not only for the sake of Europe, as for the sake of British citizens. We want a strong and constructive Britain in Europe and we want Britain to be at the centre of Europe, not on the sidelines.”
Rehn added: “If this move was aimed at preventing bankers and financial corporations of the City [of] London from being regulated, that’s not going to happen. We must all draw the lessons of the crisis and help to solve it and this goes for the financial sector as well.”
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.
Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”
And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”
~i am posting this article as i lost [*hands down* this August] a debate on whether one should keep some cash on hand…if they missed out on the metals…i do believe i was in fact called “stupid”… lolll~jude ;)
After the Federal Reserve and five other central banks on Wednesday announced a joint effort to support the global financial system, stock markets around the world zoomed. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 4.2%, its largest one-day spike since March 2009.
History could offer a clue. A Wall Street Journal analysis of market data provided by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School suggests the central-bank intervention might indeed be a turning point for the markets: U.S. and emerging-market stocks may be poised to outperform, while European stocks could be headed for more trouble. There is enough uncertainty to warrant a healthy dollop of Treasurys and cash in investors’ portfolios as well, for safety.
“There are possible positive catalysts that could paint a constructive picture for equities in 2012,” says Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management. “But at the same time we’re telling people they need to keep some money in cash until there’s better visibility.”
On Wednesday, the Fed joined with the European Central Bank and the central banks of England, Japan, Canada and Switzerland to make it easier and cheaper for banks to swap foreign currencies for dollars. (Separately, Chinese authorities reduced banks’ reserve requirements in a bid to stimulate lending and boost economic growth.)
As government interventions go, the latest foray isn’t nearly as big as the Fed’s recent bond-buying programs or the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008. But it did signal that central banks are ready to head off the kind of liquidity crisis that could derail the global financial system.
Coordinated moves like the one on Wednesday are rare but not unprecedented. In 2008, the Fed entered into similar agreements with central banks to arrest a frenzied flight out of just about everything and into dollars. Central banks also moved following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when damage to New York threatened to wreak havoc on the financial system.
Even as far back as 1931, the global banking community, through the Bank for International Settlements, tried to quell a crisis following the collapse of Vienna’s Credit-Anstalt, then that nation’s largest bank, by providing loans to Austria. The attempt was a case of too little, too late; the crisis soon spread to Germany and elsewhere, worsening the Great Depression.
History suggests the latest intervention could be good for certain asset classes. Over the past 80 years, central banks have joined forces at least seven times during financial crises, albeit in different ways and amid different circumstances from today’s.
On average, U.S. stocks had a real return of 9.1% in the three months following a coordinated intervention, 10.6% after a year and 24.5% after two years, according to the Journal’s analysis of the data provided by Profs. Dimson, Marsh and Staunton. The average annual return for stocks from 1900 to 2010 was 6.3%.
Treasurys, too, produced strong returns. They averaged 7%, 8.5% and 15.2% during the three months, one year and two years following an intervention, respectively, compared with an average annual return of 1.8% from 1900 to 2010.
Some major caveats are in order. The “swap agreements” announced on Wednesday and in 2007-08 don’t compare easily with interventions of the past. Central banks frequently have worked together over the years to prop up currencies—but moves designed to provide liquidity to the global financial system have been less common, notes Michael Bordo, an economics professor at Rutgers University.
“What the Fed did in 2008 was something new,” he says.
The closest parallels may be the international cooperation after the 1998 Russian default, the terrorist strikes of 2001 and the 2008 crisis, says Carmen Reinhart, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In all those cases, the efforts to provide liquidity prevented a collapse of the financial system in the short run but didn’t solve underlying economic problems.
What’s more, while the average returns have been strong, there has been plenty of variation.
While U.S. stocks were higher three months, one year and two years after the 2008 intervention, investors would have lost 15% in the year following the 2001 intervention and 3.2% after two years.
Still, there are lessons to be gleaned from the past.
First, the closer a market is to the epicenter of a crisis, the less likely it is to post positive returns. European stocks, for example, outpaced U.S. stocks by more than 20 percentage points during the year following the October 2008 intervention.
Likewise, European stocks fell just 6.2% in the year following the 2001 terrorist attacks, compared with a 15% decline for U.S. stocks.
By contrast, U.S. stocks outpaced European shares by nearly 19 percentage points following the attempts to shore up the global financial system after Russia’s default in 1998.
Another important lesson: Interventions don’t always follow a neat pattern for investors. Following the collapse of Credit-Anstalt in 1931, for example, U.S. stock investors lost 51.5% during the next year.
With that in mind, here’s how investors should approach their stock, bond and cash holdings.
Stocks
U.S. investors often are encouraged to invest more money abroad. They might want to tread carefully now.
The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has lost just 1% this year, compared with a 13.5% drop for Europe’s Stoxx 600 index. Meanwhile, the companies in the S&P 500 with the least international exposure have outperformed those with the most exposure by 7.1 percentage points, according to BofA Merrill Lynch.
The U.S. might keep outperforming, says Sam Katzman, chief investment officer at Constellation Wealth Advisors in New York. “If anyone can shelter themselves from what’s going on internationally, it’s the U.S.,” he says. “Money that might have been flowing to Europe might be flowing here.”
The U.S. economy has held up comparatively well thus far. On Friday, the U.S. Labor Department reported the unemployment rate for November fell by 0.4 percentage point from October to 8.6%, the lowest in nearly three years.
Yet with the risks still high, investors should focus their stock purchases on areas that provide relative safety, some strategists say. That means dividend-paying stocks, which have beaten non-dividend-paying stocks by 7.8 percentage points this year.
Growth companies whose earnings are rising steadily might be worth a look as well. “We see value in technology stocks,” says Emily Sanders, chairman and CEO of Sanders Financial Management in Norcross, Ga. “But we’re not jumping in with both feet for clients.”
European stocks might be tempting given this year’s slump. But the economic outlook remains cloudy. The euro zone’s purchasing-managers index, a gauge of manufacturing activity, fell in November to a level consistent with a 1% quarterly drop in gross domestic product, according to research firm Capital Economics.
Emerging markets are another story. Although they have been punished when they have been at the center of market crises, they have performed much better during recent crises.
In the year after the 1997 devaluation of the Thai baht, for example, emerging-market stocks lost almost a quarter of their value. But a decade later, in the year after the 2008 global intervention, they returned 89%.
Many emerging markets, especially those in Asia, may be more insulated from the European crisis than investors think, says Brad Durham, managing director of EPFR Global.
“We believe emerging markets have bottomed,” says Ms. Shalett of BofA Merrill Lynch. She recommends investors target emerging markets stocks in Asia and Latin America, while avoiding markets more exposed to the European crisis, such as those in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.
Cash and Bonds
Even though the central bank intervention has eased short-term concerns, the European common currency’s long-term picture remains cloudy, says Gary Richardson, an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine.
“Central banks around the world don’t have many arrows left in the quiver,” he says. “It looks like they hit the bull’s-eye for now, but what happens if that optimism fades?”
Aaron Schindler, a financial planner at Wealth Advisory Group in New York, recommends keeping as much as 30% of your portfolio in cash or a safe short-term bond fund, such as Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index.
Keeping some dry powder also gives you room to buy once the economic outlook becomes clearer, says Ms. Shalett.
For the bond segment of your portfolio, history shows that U.S. Treasurys have tended to pay off nicely following a central-bank intervention, no matter how stocks performed.
In the two years after September 1936, for example, when the country was in the depths of the Depression, U.S. stocks fell 16.6% in real terms, while Treasury bonds rose 5.6%.
The biggest potential for gains in fixed income could be in bonds of emerging-market countries, says Mr. Durham. The iShares JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets BondETF dropped 1.3% in November, but in the last week it has gained nearly 2%, and is up 5.7% this year. Mr. Durham says investor flows into emerging-market funds, which his firm tracks, suggest that trend could continue.
“[This year's performance] is a sign that they’re seen as a safe haven from what’s happening in Europe and other developed markets,” he says.
