The Immortal Cabal Ruling Our Planet

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I for one welcome our new Corporate Overlords. Now excuse me while I sip this Mountain Dew, eat part of my Kit Kat Bar, and continue to post on this website using my Sony Monitor, Type on my Dell Keyboard, and sit in my Hon office chair.

So those items wouldn't exist without the mega corporations? Of course they would. The only difference being the smaller companies making them wouldn't control the media, wouldn't be able to buy politicians, and would probably have more loyalty to employees than shareholders.

I guess you have never researched or read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler. He pointed out that in most wars he was familiar with, the only people benefitting were the corporations. I'm sure if you scratch hard enough you will find the MIC somewhere behind ISIS, just like they were behind Al Qaeda.

All wars are bankster wars

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

nope, if you look back all wars are the monarchs fighting for control of the worlds resources.
Banksters are just one of the conduits they use to make that happen (and very efficient at doing it without bloodshed).
others include propoganda (to get the retards to "die for their country") and information security systems (Queen Elizabeth developed that to the extreme and her kids built the British empire with it)

Now they have "plausible deniability".
But
en.wikipedia.org...
and
www.unodc.org...

Followed by the timely invasion and return to normal were quite obviously not a coincidence.
Anyone familiar with that history who saw the report knew exactly that they would and why "the world" went there.
Pretty sure all the chumps who can't be bothered to read or DTOFR are still wondering.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

a reply to: mSparks43

History shows the banksters control the monarchs through debt. You have it backwards.

a reply to: soficrow

does it?

really?

cos last time I checked the monarchs makes the loans through the banks using currency stamped with their face.

a reply to: mSparks43

You're just looking at the surface. There's much, much more to the story. Here's great article with a quick history.

Someone tell the Vatican: Monarchy and banks don’t mix

...From the 1300s to the modern era, absolute monarchs—unaccountable to boards, investors, and even their own people—have had a poor track record of managing money, paying debts, and managing banks within their borders.

...(from the 1300's) kings and other great nobles ...began turning to the heavily capitalized Italian and German banks to provide funds. To banks, the royals were tempting clients, often deep in debt from wars and maintaining their sumptuous courts. Loans to monarchs were enormous and potentially very profitable, and they brought banks prestige and an entrée into national markets.

But,...they also carried peculiar risks. Piero de’ Medici, son of Cosimo de’ Medici, warned his own son, Lorenzo the Magnificent, not to make loans to monarchs, as they involved more “risk than profit.” Lorenzo ultimately lost much of the family fortune by ignoring his father’s advice...

...The wealthiest bankers of the 16th century were the Fugger family of the Bavarian city of Augsburg, who had built their unparalleled fortune on international trade, a pan-European mining operation, and a banking network almost three times the size of the Medicis’.

...the Rothschild dynasty, ...succeeded in banking to kings—in part by building an international asset network whose secrecy and inscrutability rivaled any monarch’s.

a reply to: soficrow

I've got the house of rothchilds books.
they just manage loans between monarchs and heads of state for international trade.

at the country level. it's all federal reserve and bank of England which are majority owned by the old families under the "British crown" Co.

think someone even has a thread on that here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: mSparks43

History shows the banksters control the monarchs through debt. You have it backwards.

Of course. Those who appear to be in charge are really not, and those who are really in charge are hidden. Sad, but true. Has been this way throughout the ages. To believe otherwise is just naïve.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: mSparks43

History shows the banksters control the monarchs through debt. You have it backwards.

Of course. Those who appear to be in charge are really not, and those who are really in charge are hidden. Sad, but true. Has been this way throughout the ages. To believe otherwise is just naïve.

You got it.





a reply to: mSparks43

There are lots and lots of books on the topic and likely, an infinite number of related threads here on ATS. Enjoy.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
alternatively.
those with the power to call to arms 90% of the world's military to defend their poppy fields and it's routes into China.
while having every media outlet convince you its cos of the evil brown people attacking your state that worship another god

probably are in charge.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
alternatively.
those with the power to call to arms 90% of the world's military to defend their poppy fields and it's routes into China.
while having every media outlet convince you its cos of the evil brown people attacking your state that worship another god

probably are in charge.

If you think I buy into MSM propaganda you are mistaken.

We should have had increasing peace since the cold war ended, but that has not been the case, ever since Bush elder gave Saddam tacit agreement on his little incursion into Kuwait. It seems the Bushes are associated with many of the wars over the past two decades. It is no surprise many link Bush elder to the JFK assassination which many think was originated by the MIC, and of course the MIC is the only group that has benefitted from the ongoing wars and terrorist threats. The whole world would be 100x safer overnight if we could gut the MIC and reduce the staffing and budgets at the "intelligence agencies" such as NSA, CIA, DIA, DSS, etc by 90% which run cover for and facilitate the wishes of the former.

But that won't happen because people are too distracted and divided due to manipulation of their egos through the vehicles of consumerism and religion respectively.

All one can do is try to educate. Peace.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

there's a big difference between "not buying into the propoganda" and actually understanding why and how the propoganda comes to be.

you seem to think it's because the banksters make a few tens of billions of dollars on the military industrial complex.

I think it's because the old monarchies are still making hundreds of billions on the opium trade with China and groups like the taliban destroyed 91% of their prime crop the year before the world went to war with them. or because in places like the UK and Saudi Arabia those families without question own all that nation's oil resources.
www.globalresearch.ca...

stuff like the banksters intelligence agencies and media are just tools.
they are not the reason the lies are constructed.
follow the money - and it most definately doesn't stop at the bankers moving it around for people. they just take a small cut.

a small cut of a very large pie.
but then we can all do that....

a reply to: mSparks43

Great article, thanks. But nowhere does it even suggest the "old monarchies are still making hundreds of billions on the opium trade with China." For example. In fact, it says:

...In other words, intelligence agencies, powerful business, drug traders and organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. A large share of this multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have “political friends in high places.” Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between “businesspeople” and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions including the Military.

a reply to: soficrow

that comes from my post at the top of this page.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

simple summary.
in the 1800s the British monarchy went to war with China. and won. when the Chinese tried to stop them selling opium to their population.

and the Chinese have been hooked on opium while the British monarchy have been expanding their ownership of everything ever since.

a reply to: mSparks43

The key question is, "Who owns the monarchs?"

a reply to: soficrow

no one AFAIK. buck seems to stop with either the house of wettin or sax coburg and gotha.
they play a slightly political game. but those freaks and their (innumerable) supporters really do believe they have blue blood and were appointed to their positions by god himself.

there's also the papacy of course. but they at least seem to be mostly moral and just these days. (and surprisingly democratic)

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: soficrow

no one AFAIK. buck seems to stop with either the house of wettin or sax coburg and gotha.
they play a slightly political game. but those freaks and their (innumerable) supporters really do believe they have blue blood and were appointed to their positions by god himself.

there's also the papacy of course. but they at least seem to be mostly moral and just these days. (and surprisingly democratic)

As I recall, the story says monarchs are descended from God (not appointed by God). That's the "bloodline" thing - and raises the spectre of feuding aliens of course. But I digress - and totally disagree with your take on the hierarchy.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: soficrow

does it?

really?

cos last time I checked the monarchs makes the loans through the banks using currency stamped with their face.

Just because the monarch's have their likeness on currency does not mean they are pulling the strings of power. I'm sorry but I think that is too simplistic.

I will take Mayer Amschel Rothschild at his word when he uttered these famous words:

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws"

Aren't the ramifications of this statement self-evident? The implications are that whoever controls the money supply will be the ultimate power in a country independent of politicians and royalty.

Jeez, all the way back in 1307 this was evident, when Phillip the IV of France, who needed money for his wars, began a persecution of the Templars, the sole reason being to get his hands on their wealth.

Just google search terms as Rothschilds and International Bank of Settlements and Central Banks and you will see how they are all interconnected and either control or are associated with most of the major financial institutions of the world as well as most of the largest transnational corporations.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Yeah, worked a charm on the Germans after WWI.....
Which started because?

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Yeah, worked a charm on the Germans after WWI.....
Which started because?

It started after the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) got its Charter - with Britain, Germany, the USA and Japan as signatories - notably to the clause stipulating that even if these nations went to war with one another and the BIS funded warring sides in the conflict, they could not sue or appropriate the BIS' funds. Which they did (the BIS loaned money for the war to Britain, Germany, the USA AND Japan), and made a fricking fortune on the interest our parents spent their lifetimes paying off. Wiki has a decent entry on the BIS and of course there are books.

a reply to: soficrow

charter from whom?