- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is a question that has been asked and discussed on a previous forum and it broadened my mind to view the world in a different way, and is always the way for me created more questions than answers.
The names of Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, The Rothschild’s, The Rockefeller’s, Goldman Sachs, The Du Ponts,The Jesuits. All extremely wealthy entities and families, but in digging I found many indicating that these entities were considered to be considered to be at best middle management, to mercenaries for those considered to be the true puppet masters that prefer to remain veiled in secrecy. Is it true? Or is it just some drivel to feed a conspiracy theory driven mind its dead end evidence fix for wasting time? My honest answer is that I do not know. But I hope that this might spark some conversations on whether the topics in the video discussion have merit or if it is complete fantasy.
Professor Hamamoto has a discussion with Leuren Moret on many topics and how the influence of this global influence has affected and infected not only The University of California at Davis but also the entire universities across America and the global academic landscape.
The biggest problem with this question is that you won’t ever get a definitive answer. Blackrock, for example, has obvious influence, and since Larry Fink is the head of Blackrock, you can claim that he’s in control. But, if you could look into Fink’s life, he might be controlled by Secret Society X, so you could say they are in control. But Secret Society X might be headed by John Doe, so you might think he’s the leader of the world. But what if John Doe believes he is in contact with spirits or aliens, and takes orders from them? And it could go on and on, every answer leading to 4 additional questions, some maybe too bizarre to be believed….
Also, there is no doubt the very rich and powerful often hide their assets from public eyes. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, publicly. But what about privately? Do the Rockefellers beat him? The Rothchilds? The Payseurs? Some other family you never even heard of? It is pretty well established that John Rockefeller put a lot of his wealth into trusts and foundations, to maintain the fortune for generations. But no one really knows how many trusts and foundations that might be. Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?
I think it’s good to realize that there is more control in the world that just the well known public mechanisms. It can certainly be fun and educational to go down that road a bit. But you probably don’t want it to consume you. There are people that have spent their entire lifetimes searching, and they didn’t find out the answer.
The other thing is, don’t let it make you forget your own power. Blackrock, for example, is a powerful entity, but only because other people allow them to invest their wealth. I think if, say, 30% of retail investors pulled all their money from any sort of Blackrock fund, that would kill the whole DEI and ESG stuff, and Blackrock would suffer a huge blow as an investment company. You don’t need Blackrock or the stock market, you could invest in small companies, or real estate, or something like your own company. You might also want to start learning about things like the trusts that the Rockfellers used, as there is nothing stopping you or your family from using the same trusts yourselves. Any sort of government, including a king or a theoretical world ruler, only has power to the extent that he/she/it has the consent of the people. There’s always going to be someone who doesn’t go along, even if it’s a very tiny minority.
It’s also interesting that, when it comes to financial control, you name publicly visible companies (Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman), but not some others, which have more power and control. The Federal Reserve is an obvious one, as they control the “money” supply in the United States, and affect the world economy. It’s history, and what it is (it’s not part of the Federal Government, but more like a special sort of contractor, “quasi-public” is a frequent description). There are other private, or quasi-public, corporations or entities that rarely get any mention. Not totally hidden, but not in any way advertised. Those include the DTC, the DTCC, and Cede & Co. Cede & Co. is one of the most interesting, as it is the entity that actually holds title to well over 95% (99%?) of stocks, bonds, and financial instruments. Technically, they own everything (almost). Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, they don’t hold title to anything, neither do their investors, it’s all in the name of Cede & Co. There are people who have talked about these entities, like Patrick Byrne, but you can also read about them in the “ABCs of the UCCs” book on Article 8 (Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code lays down all the rules for how the stock market game is played today). The ABCs of the UCC series is published by The American Bar Association.
I also think it’s interesting how history is painted in a certain light. There’s a popular belief that “Nixon ended the Gold Standard” in the United States. The reality is he did no such thing, as there hadn’t been a “Gold Standard” in the United States since 1933 (and arguably 1914). FDR and the many acts passed in Congress in 1933 got rid of coverability to gold of any paper currency (prior, Federal Reserve Notes could be redeemed for gold, despite not being backed by them), and got rid of Treasury issued Gold Certificates (which were backed by gold, at least in theory, and could be redeemed for gold). All Nixon did was end the Breton Woods agreement, and the last connection between the dollar and gold. Whether he was ordered to do this or not, he probably had little real choice, as most of the gold that the government held had already been plundered, and there certainly wasn’t enough gold held by the US to support economy of the United States at that point, not when it was held at $35 an ounce. I don’t think there would have been enough gold mined in the history of the world at that point to support a true gold standard for the 1971 US economy, at $35 an ounce.
There are many good things said here Zack, my response was delayed given that I wanted to see how things would play out after the attempted assassination made on Donald Trump this past week.
Ultimately you are correct when you say that the power does truly reside in the hands of the people, and throughout history this has been demonstrated. That many civilizations always have had an oligarchy in some shape, form or fashion in place. Their success has always been in the ability to control the narrative, strategically manipulate the people to create divisions using an old strategy of divide and conquer, thus rule. The problems always arise at the end usually when the use of finances are over extended much like the people in their own personal finances that pay the debt on their Visa with their American Express and the American Express is due at the end of the month. This is usually accompanied with extreme polarization along political lines, then hyperinflation, possibly sparking civil wars.
The ideas that you espoused for investments are very good ones and certainly are worthwhile researching. As for who rules the world it is an interesting topic and one worthwhile for lively discussion and perhaps investment advice, there are even A.I apps that will follow the political classes investments and will move funds as you direct them in mirror like fashion to theirs. This is not a terrible thought process either as in U.S. law elected officials have immunity from insider trading laws for the committees and boards upon which they sit.I was unaware of Cede & Co this is an interesting scenario, one which I need to wrap my head around. If one were to buy stocks through a broker or online trade such as Questrade, when you purchase the stock it will go into your account portfolio as 1000 Coca Cola common shares for example. Do you actually own that stock or is it held in escrow by Cede & Co for you?
Or is it all just a facade?
Do they get a transfer fee?
Or how does their revenue streams work?An example of how a new piece of information generates more questions, and could become all consuming.
I was aware that The Federal reserve was an independent entity, and does hold the powers for interest rates, but as with all things money the question of collusion and possibly corruption will always be omnipresent especially when dealing with the vast sums in which they are dealing with.The revelation regarding the gold standard is an interesting one. I was under the impression that Breton Woods was an agreement that brought most of the gold from Europe post World War Two for safe storage and the countries received American dollars in exchange for their gold.
After America took over from the French in Vietnam, then President De Galle knowing how much wars cost especially in Vietnam decided that France might be better off having their gold on French soil and exchanged his dollars for their gold, Germany followed in kind and this lead to Nixons decision to,”temporarily” take the dollar off of the gold standard. This appears to only be the last part of this story. But it does seem to usher in the birth of the petro dollar.From my understanding, pretty much all shares are in the name of Cede & Co, unless you actually hold a paper title. But vast majority of stock holders don’t today. As such, you can’t easily check. I guess you could call up your securities intermediary (like Questrade) and ask “Hey, those 1,000 shares of XYZ company, are they in my name? If so, can you send me a notarized copy of those shares in my name so I can check?”
However, The ABCs of the UCC on Article 8 goes through how it works in the indirect holding system. You don’t really hold stock, which is a security, you hold a “security entitlement” to that stock. In fact, the book even goes into what can happen if a broker doesn’t have enough credited shares to cover all their customer’s security entitlements. It also talks about Jumbo Certificates, and Uncertificated Securities. It’s only 110 pages, and fairly expensive for a book that size, but the info in it is blockbuster, and as I mentioned before, it’s published by the American Bar Association. You can find it on Amazon and other bookstores, and directly on the ABA website. It’s written for lawyers and legal professionals, but I think any layman could pretty easily understand it. I’d say it’s worth the 35 bucks or so.
As far as the Fed goes, I’m sure there are corrupt officials within it, but for the most part, they are probably doing exactly what they are “supposed” to, in regards to The Federal Reserve Act, and other legislation. The two major issues are first, did Congress have the authority to delegate part of their power to a private entity? Not contract for services, mind you, but delegate power to a private entity? With that idea, you may want to listen to Justice Scalia’s answer to this hypothetical question from Senator Lee (first 7 minutes or so)
The second issue is how exactly the Federal Reserve creates “money” in the first place. This has been discussed in many places, but you might want to check Congressman Patman’s remarks in the 1932 congressional record (there’s websites that have reprinted them, but you can download the record from Congress dot gov, and read it straight from the source. Note, those PDFs are huge files, since they are photos of old papers, with tiny text, and thousands of pages per book). Tom Shauf’s books are also good, he was a CPA who went over what happens when a “loan” takes place in the current system.
As for Bretton Woods, my understanding was that foreign countries (and probably other foreign agents) could redeem Federal Reserve Notes for gold, but that “US Citizens” could not. So, “Quasi Gold Standard” is probably the correct term. The France/Germany “bank run” you describe might have lead to a serious reduction, and maybe fear of total depletion of gold reserves, hence the trigger of the “Nixon Shock.” It was shortly after this that The Gold Reserve Act was amended, and “US Citizens” could hold gold again, and could more freely trade it.
An interesting case in this regard is “United States vs. One Solid Gold Object In the Form of a Rooster.” Clearly an In Rem case under Admiralty, and as it was before the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” still used Admiralty terms like Libellant and Libelee. You can search Google Scholar under the case section, if you want to read it.
Thanks for this information Zack, there is a lot there to look into.
I am not wanting to run down a rabbit hole with this information, but just putting this here as something that is being reported on. It does seem to have some level of truth to it.
There might be nothing suspicious about the short position on DJT as the market gets millions worth of it every day. It’s just another day in the office but the timing coincides with the assassination attempt. Trump’s media firm is a reasonable target for short attempts due to its weak performance in the markets.
However, the put options caused losses to Austin Private Wealth as Trump’s media firm surged in the charts. After the assassination, DJT rose nearly 23% touching a weekly high of $37.38. DJT shares had closed at $30.89 on Friday’s closing bell but spiked in price from Monday onwards
This could also be a complete coincidence but Tom Luongo noted the Microsoft I.T. crash also coincided with the monthly options expiry auction day on Friday July 19/24. These events that are conversed about might be purely coincidental as options and puts happen everyday everywhere, and internet reliability is known to be troublesome at the best of times.
I would be curious on your thoughts on these events @Zack Vegas.
Here’s a clip of RFK Jr. talking about Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard-
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/N-Rsqx_kRug
The problem with that clip is that he makes several false statements. First of all, those three companies do not “own” 88% of the S&P. The S&P has a market cap of roughly $46 Trillion, and the assets of those three companies are well under $1 Trillion combined. However, those companies do have a far higher amount of assets under management. Blackrock, a little over $10 Trillion, Vanguard, just over $9 Trillion, and State Street about $4 Trillion. But even those numbers only come to about $24 Trillion under management, which is closer to 50% of the S&P, not 88%. Plus, those numbers include assets outside of the S&P.
So, those three companies don’t “own” everything, nor “control” everything. That’s not to say they aren’t powerful, because they are. But RFK Jr.’s comments are totally distorted.
This article from US News and World Report does a better job of illustrating the issues with these three companies-
https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/these-3-fund-families-control-74-of-the-market
It’s not they own so much, but that they manage so much. So, if someone is invested in funds controlled by those companies, and they either used their voting power and/or pulled out their money and invested somewhere else, the power of those companies would decrease, and could decrease rapidly and quickly.
Your points are very good and not arguable Zack. I think that what is focussed on the the level of money and property under management by the,”big three”. What is less known and talked about is the levels of influence on power and how they manipulate and gain control over the political class and elected officials. In this group names such as Eric Schmidt, Peter Thiel, Members of the billionaires who form the so-called council that represents Israel’s interest and influence the U.S foreign policy.
I do not know if you have come across Whitney Webb’s investigative journalism, but she reports on what she has researched on all interconnection between the political class and Wall Street. How Larry Fink was integral in the wealth transfer that took place in the orchestrated pandemic, and benefitted from the proceeds of the quantitative easing in the monetary handouts.
I would be interested in your take on this if you would have the time. Is it fact or fictional?I’m familiar with Whitney Webb, but don’t really follow her work much. I can tell she’s a good researcher, and probably correct on a lot of things, but still think she misses some foundational pieces. For example, at about 40 minutes, she claims that the Covid policies could arguably be the biggest transfer of wealth from regular people to the Oligarch class in American History. I think the only way to make that argument is from a position of ignorance, specifically ignorance about what happened in regards to the financial and banking system during the Civil War, 1913, and 1933. Prior to 1913 and the Federal Reserve, most Americans owned their land in allodium, meaning there were no claims or liens against it. This includes both mortgages, and taxes. Now, even if people hold title to property, they usually have some sort of mortgage or loan(s) against it, and also pay property taxes. They generally still owe property taxes, even if there is no mortgage. In 1933, the monetary system in the United States changed from one that was predominantly based on money of exchange (gold, silver, and gold certificates), to a system based completely on debt, or money of account. I used to think it was a fractional reserve system, but it’s not, because in truth, there are no reserves. There is only accounting. Money of account is still a part of accounting, and how can accounting ever be a “reserve” for accounting? Bitcoin and all cryptos are also money of account (at their core, they are an open, distributed ledger protected by cryptography), and therefore, not a good “reserve” for more accounting.
These changes let to a massive transfer of wealth, far more during the Great Depression than anything that happened under the Covid operation. The changes during the Civil War, 1913 and 1933 were fundamental changes as to how the financial system in the US operates. Most Covid changes and things around Bitcoin and other cryptos were changes within that established system. The later is just completely dwarfed by the former. I don’t see how the rumored “Great Reset” or anything similar will change the system from being based on accounting, unless its going to attempt to compel people to pledge literally everything (their life, labor, bodies, thoughts, family, and all assets) to the government. That would fulfill the WEF claim of “You will own nothing and be happy” and also fulfill Karl Marx’s vision of “Abolition of Private Property.”
Financial Assets (like bonds, notes, stock, debentures, all modern currency, trade acceptances and such) are far different from Real Assets (like lumber, oil, gold, cars, houses, and even intangible things like music, movies, and software), as the later have real value on their own, while Financial Assets only have value as they represent debt. But Financial Assets have the potential to generate much more wealth for their holders than Real Assets, especially since most people are ignorant of the differences between the two, and how potentially powerful Financial Assets can be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Author
J.R.K