Michaelh thought I should turn a recent comment into an article. LINK So I am going to buff up and expand that comment. As I said in my De-Population series, the years around 1970 were an inflection point, a pivotal time period in American history.
Please at least skim the other articles for the historic background surrounding this article. I have tried to show the point of view of the Cabal, and not the propaganda we are fed.
SETTING THE STAGE
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a major period of cooling. In 1969, grain stores had decreased drastically and by 1972 had plummeted to crisis levels, that, according to the CIA, country leaders went to great pains to hide. In 1970, Broecker, using new radioactive decay dating methods (oxygen isotopes) identified and dated five full ice age cycles. He stated his work was in agreement with the 1911 Milankovitch cycles. (Hays and Shackleton expanded on this, publishing in 1972.) Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon that the Holocene could be ending (12/03/72.) Kukla STILL asserts all Ice Ages start with a period of global warming. They’re the harbingers of new Ice Ages. (That warming has now ended.)
*In 1974 a CIA report warned ”…there is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor…” To the Cabal that was a serious OH! SCHIFF! However this crisis could be used to scare world leaders into falling in line with the Cabal’s plans for population control and a world government, and that is exactly what happened.
DEPOPULATION SERIES:
This explains WHY the cabal may think the Holocene is ending and they are running out of time.
GREENHOUSE, ICEHOUSE OR CLIMATIC MADHOUSE?
History of the Eugenics Movement going back over 100 years.
MALTHUSIANS AND EUGENISTS MAKE A CASE FOR POPULATION CONTROL
Excerpts from the Kissinger report. If you want to understand the real origin of Covid 19 THESE EXCERPTS explain it.
PLEASE PLEASE READ!
National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200
The events surrounding the Kissinger report. When I wrote this the implications of the Kissinger report had not yet sunk in.
DEPOPULATION – NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE
This explains WHY the Cabal has no fear of a nuclear war.
THE ATTACK ON THE FOOD SUPPLY SERIES AND OTHER ARTICLES: PAGE 1 and PAGE 2 and PAGE 3.
THE 1970S SHORT HISTORY:
If we go back in time to the 1970 inflection point, we can see that the plans were already being put in place to ‘De-industrialize’ the USA. By 1970, thanks to the stimulus from WWII, US manufacturing was really humming, while Europe was still recovering from WWII and Russia and China were suffering mis-management under Communism. In 1970 the percent of the workforce employed in manufacturing was 26.4% In 2013, it was about 8.8 % at which point the government quit keeping track. In 2013 the USA had close to ~23% unemployment rate and that goes for the entire eight years prior to that date. In spite of the government numbers, GDP in 2013 had actually been below zero according to ShadowStat. By the time of Obama, the USA had become a ‘Service Economy’ selling cheap Chinese crud to each other. The only reason we did not have soup lines is because of the invention of EBT cards, the FED printing money and the 2 trillion dollar underground economy.
If you have read the earlier articles you will see Nixon was a critical figure when it came to implementing the Cabal’s depopulation plans here in the US. He also played a major roll in ‘de-industrializing’ the USA. Nixon is the president who gave us the EPA (December 4, 1970.), OSHA, (December 29, 1970) opened the US market up to strengthen Mao’s Communist China (1971-72), and closed the gold window (August 1971) since foreign banks had stripped all the ‘good deliverable gold’ from Fort Knox. This lead to massive devaluation of the dollar, followed by the OPEC cartel hiking the price of oil. Remember ARAMCO was a Saudi-Rockefeller enterprise “..There was a phony “nationalization” of Aramco in the 1970s… the Saudi government took over Aramco, formally, but then immediately turned around and granted the Aramco-Rockefeller consortium the exclusive contract to “manage” the operation…” LINK Any bets the Rockefellers were behind OPEC?
However it was Reagan’s Administration, the Era of the Hostile Takeovers aka Leverage buyouts, that really gutted the core of the USA. — Our Manufacturing.
Before I get into the moves President Reagan made, I am going to look at what happened before Reagan made his moves and then the comment that prompted this article.
ROCKEFELLER:
Rockefeller insider, Dr. Richard Day (1905-1989)
On March 20, 1969, Dr. Richard Day, the National Medical Director of the Rockefeller-sponsored “Planned Parenthood” told a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society that the US will be de-industrialized..
Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/confirmedrockefeller_plan_to_g.html
That source may raise an eyebrow but a few short years later Obama’s Science advisor, John Holdren, and the Ehrlichs came out with this book:
Human Ecology: Problems & Solutions January 1, 1973
Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, & John Holdren
Chapter TEN
Synthesis and Recommendations
[Page 277]
3 A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de–development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low–consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being..
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY:
A comment on the Q-tree by Phoenixrising added this important piece to the puzzle.
The coup d’état of the Straussians in Israel – Voltairenet
by Thierry Meyssan
…This reform will change the nature of Israel completely. It is openly supported by two think tanks, the Kohelet Policy Forum and the Law and Liberty Forum. The latter is inspired by one of the groups that make up the Federalist Society in the United States; the association that secretly drafted the USA Patriot Act and imposed it on the occasion of the September 11 attacks [1]. The Law and Liberty Forum is funded by the Tikvah Fund, which is chaired by the US-Israeli neo-conservative Elliott Abrams (known for his role in the Iran-Contra affair and in numerous coups in Latin America) [2].
…The Federalist Society and the Law and Liberty Forum’s strategy is to change jurisprudence by changing judges [3]. Over a period of 30 years, the Federalist Society has succeeded in legally justifying neo-liberalism, limiting the possibilities of recourse against big business, deconstructing the way in which the Democratic Party had imagined the fight against discrimination and for the right to abortion, preventing the USA from joining a number of international treaties and, finally, transforming the balance of power in the USA so that the president can wage whatever wars he wants and practice torture.
The originality of the Federalist Society’s approach was to reinterpret the principles of Anglo-Saxon law. Drawing on the writings of the philosopher Leo Strauss, it substituted “natural law” for “positive law. For example, during the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan wanted to deregulate the economy, but he was constrained by law and could not. A Federalist Society theorist, Professor Richard Epstein, argued that property was not a matter of positive law, i.e., conventions drawn up by legislators, but of natural law, i.e., that it was instituted by God. Now, any regulation of an economic activity consists in limiting the way in which certain owners behave. Therefore, any regulation is an expropriation that requires compensation.
Thus, if a law, in the interest of the community, requires industrialists to produce only products of a certain quality, it limits their property rights, and they must therefore be compensated. This interpretation of the law allowed President Ronald Reagan to deconstruct all pre-existing economic regulations…
References cited in the above article:
[1] «The U.S. Right-wing Group Behind a Conservative Legal Revolution in Israel», Nettanel Slyomovics, Ha’arets, January 30, 2023.
[2] « Elliott Abrams, le “gladiateur” converti à la “théopolitique” », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 14 février 2005.
[3] « La Federalist Society investit la Cour suprême des États-Unis », Réseau Voltaire, 2 février 2006.
[4] Proceedings of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Symposium : American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, Princeton University Press (2005).
The references in the above article on the Federalist Society led to this article:
American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, July 10, 2005
When reading this article remember the Cabal’s use of ‘Women’s Rights’ (the right to work, have access to birth control and have abortions) as just a means of population control to them. It is mentioned in NSSM-200 — the 1974 Kissinger report.
Defining Exceptionalism:
Since 1945 America has displayed exceptional leadership in promoting international human rights. At the same time, however, it has also resisted complying with human rights standards at home or aligning its foreign policy with these standards abroad. Under some administrations, it has promoted human rights as if they were synonymous with American values, while under others, it has emphasized the superiority of American values over international standards….
Thanks to Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, the United States took a leading role in the creation of the United Nations and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.[1] Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world. Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world. These promote religious freedom, gender equality, democratic rights, and the abolition of slavery; they monitor human rights performance by governments, including—and especially—the U.S. government. U.S. government action, together with global activism by U.S. NGOs, has put Americans in the forefront of attempts to improve women’s rights, defend religious liberty, improve access to AIDS drugs, [a major POISON developed by Fauci according to Dr Judy Mikovits -G.C.] spread democracy and freedom through the Arab and Muslim worlds, and oppose tyrants from Slobodan Milošević to Saddam Hussein….
Why There’s No Liberal Federalist Society — Politico
The legal left has a money problem, a history problem and—maybe worst of all—a big-idea problem.
…What’s going on? One explanation is historical: The Federalist Society is simply older, with deeper roots. Those trace back some years before its founding, to a 1971 memo written by Lewis Powell, shortly before his nomination to the Supreme Court, in which he argued that the “𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸”—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹. The Powell Manifesto, as it came to be known, foreshadowed the development of today’s roster of powerful conservative think tanks—the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan and Cato Institutes, and the Federalist Society…
Note the differences in the explanation of the origin of the Federalist Society. Melding the two you have Industrialists like the Rockefellers (remember their link to Chicago University via John Dewey) LOOKING for groups they can use. John D. was KNOWN for hiding his moves behind surrogates.
THE ORIGIN OF NGOs:
Rockefeller’s man, Maurice Strong, was Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972. He started the CAGW movement. Strong is the guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992. Strong’s web site in google states: “Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.”
In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank, the UN AND the World Economic Forum.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” LINK
“Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG [Commission on Global Governance] has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations…. LINK
NGOs USED to REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” – LINK These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations and foundation sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
PRESIDENT REAGAN:
Well that certainly explains why Reagan did not use the anti-monopoly laws on the books to prevent the Transnational Corporations from a massive take over of American owned mid-sized corporations. It also explains why our ‘Conservative’ Judges did nothing to stop him.
CHAPTER 5 The Monopoly Enigma, the Reagan Administration’s Antitrust Experiment, and the Global Economy
Abstract
In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration drastically altered American antitrust policy, virtually eliminating Section 2 cases involving monopolies. This chapter provides a context for that decision by tracing the efforts that the federal government made since 1890 to reconcile an opposition to highly concentrated economic power with the even stronger enthusiasm Americans have always had for the economic success they associated with the nation’s largest enterprises. In this setting, judges and government lawyers struggled over the years to come up with a clear concept of monopoly. In the global economy of the late 20th century, the Reagan policy innovation solved that problem and proved to be timely and significant. The new policy allowed American firms to get up to global scale, either through strategic alliances or through mergers that would not have been allowed under previous administrations.
..In January 1982, former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon and a group of investors acquired Gibson Greetings, a producer of greeting cards, for $80 million, of which only $1 million was rumored to have been contributed by the investors. By mid-1983, just sixteen months after the original deal, Gibson completed a $290 million IPO and Simon made approximately $66 million.[9]
The success of the Gibson Greetings investment attracted the attention of the wider media to the nascent boom in leveraged buyouts.[10] Between 1979 and 1989, it was estimated that there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts valued in excess of $250 billion…..
US Secretary of the Treasury started the sellout of our economy. Reagan through his laissez faire attitude did nothing to stop it. Now I finally understand WHY.
Takeovers and Leveraged Buyouts
…Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration’s relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years;
the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called “junk bond” innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals….
Without intervention by the government or courts, greed took over.
Takeovers and Leveraged Buyouts
Corporate takeovers became a prominent feature of the American business landscape during the seventies and eighties. A hostile takeover usually involves a public tender offer—a public offer of a specific price, usually at a substantial premium over the prevailing market price, good for a limited period, for a substantial percentage of the target firm’s stock. Unlike a merger, which requires the approval of the target firm’s board of directors as well as voting approval of the stockholders, a tender offer can provide voting control to the bidding firm without the approval of the target’s management and directors…..
Because it allows bidders to seek control directly from shareholders—by going “over the heads” of target management—the tender offer is the most powerful weapon available to the hostile bidder. … Although hostile bidders still need a formal merger to gain total control of the target’s assets, this is easily accomplished once the bidder has purchased a majority of voting stock.
Hostile tender offers have been around for decades, but they were rare and generally involved small target firms until the midseventies. Then came the highly controversial multibillion-dollar hostile takeovers of very recognizable public companies. By the late eighties there were dozens of multi-billion-dollar takeovers and their cousins, leveraged buyouts (LBOs). The largest acquisition ever was the $25 billion buyout of RJR Nabisco by Kolberg Kravis and Roberts in 1989. [Editor’s note: this was written in 1992.] ….
This is the result of the 1980’s leveraged buyout feeding frenzy.
Leveraged Buyouts, Americans Pay the Price – January 29,1989 New York Times
….Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980’s were hostile. The 1980’s also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.’s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988…
THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers…. In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America….
THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another’s.
Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages….
America has been quietly sold off piece by piece. This is a sampling of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership, according to Source Watch over two decades ago (2002.0
— Sound recording industries – 97%
— Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage – 79%
— Motion picture and sound recording industries – 75%
— Metal ore mining – 65%
— Wineries and distilleries – 64%
— Database, directory, Book and other publishers – 63%
— Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product – 62%
— Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment – 57%
— Rubber product – 53%
— Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing – 53%
— Plastics and rubber products manufacturing – 52%
* Other insurance related activities – 51%
— Boiler, tank, and shipping container – 50%
— Glass and glass product – 48%
— Coal mining – 48%
A real eye opener isn’t it. But it gets worse. “…The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads…” http://www.alabamaeagle.org/issues.asp?action=form&formID=2105&recordID=131006
(Funny how that info has now been completely scrubbed from the internet including the Wayback Machine…)
The Value of Money – Greg Pickup January 3, 2003
…Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP in 1990. Today it is valued at over 70% of U.S. GDP. Foreigners own $2 trillion (19% of U.S. GDP) more in U.S. assets that the U.S. holds of theirs. Foreign ownership of the U.S. Treasury market is over 30%, over 23% of the corporate bond market, and 13% of the U.S. equity market. (Statistics courtesy of Bridgewater, Dec 13, 2002.)
The fate of the dollar now boils down to a question of confidence. But not the confidence of its own citizens, but of foreigners. Their holdings are now such a large percentage of the total that, if confidence in the U.S. falters and foreigners become sellers, there is grave risk to U.S. financial markets….
And just to bring things up to the present.
THE NETWORK OF GLOBAL CORPORATE CONTROL:
The Network of Global Corporate Control
…we find that only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all TNCs [Trans National Corporations] …This means that network control is much more unequally distributed than wealth. In particular, the top ranked actors hold a control ten times bigger than what could be expected based on their wealth…
…In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations. A relevant additional fact at this point is that 3/4 of the core are financial intermediaries….
The top 50 controllers of the International corporations – New Scientist
The 147 Companies That Control Everything – Forbes
and
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟰𝟳 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗢𝘄𝗻 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 – Forbes
There may be 147 companies in the world that own everything, as colleague Bruce Upbin points out and they are dominated by investment companies as Eric Savitz rightly points out. But it’s not you and I who really control those companies, even though much of our money is in them. Given the nature of how money is invested, there are four companies in the shadows that 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 control those companies that own everything.
Before I reveal them, some light math:
According to the 2011 annual factbook from the Investment Company Institute, there is $24.7 trillion in all the mutual funds in the world (a little less than half from the US). Based on data from the ICI, $1.24 trillion of this is directly invested in index funds, plus another $992 billion in assets beyond that $24.7 trillion in Exchange Traded Funds, which aren’t mutual funds but are index funds. That means the bulk of that money is in “active” managed funds or fund of funds….
...the chief of hedge funds at a very large asset manager told me last week (alas, I cannot identify either) that an internal study his firm recently performed found that the vast majority of mutual funds defined as actively managed see 95% of the assets they hold determined by an index. That means just 5% of actively managed funds really are driven by the active manager’s judgment.…
So of the $25.69 trillion in worldwide assets we’ve identified, $2.23 trillion are directly in indexes (ETFs and index mutual funds) with another $22.3 trillion indirectly beholden to indexes (that 95% of actively managed fund holdings said to be determined by an index).
You can see where I’m headed here. That means the real power to control the world lies with four companies: McGraw-Hill, which owns Standard & Poor’s, Northwestern Mutual, which owns Russell Investments, the index arm of which runs the benchmark Russell 1,000 and Russell 3,000, CME Group which owns 90% of Dow Jones Indexes, and Barclay’s, which took over Lehman Brothers and its Lehman Aggregate Bond Index, the dominant world bond fund index. Together, these four firms dominate the world of indexing. And in turn, that means they hold real sway over the world’s money….
Just to be clear, if you invest in a mutual fund you are buying shares in the mutual fund (that you cannot vote) and the Mutual Fund then uses YOUR money to buy stock shares which it owns and controls. This allows much more consolidation of control. For example Edward C Johnson 3rd, chairman of the Fidelity Group voted the stock in Monsanto owned by several pension and mutual funds like FMR LLC, FIDELITY MAGELLAN FUND INC, FIDELITY GROWTH COMPANY FUND, and Pyramid Global Advisors. The Vanguard Group, aka John C. Bogle, owned another healthy chunk of Monsanto. In this way even more power is concentrated in the hands of a few. This explains the point made in the paper, Network of Global Corporate Control, that the amount of power is greater than the amount of wealth can account for.
So facts like “85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders” while true in that the money originated from pensioners and other little people does not tell the whole story. Yet it is trumpeted by those who want to confuse those trying to follow the money and power trails and misdirect us into thinking the stock is held and voted by pensioners — a complete and utter falsehood.
This is the actual truth:
S&P 500: One Investor Is The Largest Owner Of Two-Thirds Of U.S. Companies
Aug 15, 2022
Thanks to the surging popularity of its index funds, Vanguard is now the No. 1 owner of 330 stocks in the S&P 500, or two-thirds of the world’s most important collection of stocks, says an Investor’s Business Daily analysis of data from S&P Global Market Intelligence and MarketSmith. No other investor comes remotely close. BlackRock (BLK) is a remote second-top owner, ranking as the No. 1 investor in just 38 S&P 500 companies.
Not only does the Cabal use our saving and pensions to gain control over corporations, they also shifted the tax burden to the middle class. At the same time that corporate taxes and tariffs on imported good (excise) have gone down, taxes on personal income aka WAGES has gone up. ‘Tax the wealthy’ is a real joke because the wealthy ARE NOT PAID WAGES.
(Try finding that graph via a search engine today.)
And as a bit of Karma…
