Site rules stolen from our good friend PAVACA
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles, video and such.
I want to archive these videos from Mike Benz, Promethean Action & the Transition Integrity Project interviews, since it documents the switch from the Fabian model (gradual) to a Color Revolution after the Cabal lost complete control of the USA under D.J. Trump.
Published September 25, 2020 (17 minutes) Have a barf bag ready…
The White House is pushing back against its own FBI director who disputed President Trump’s claims about widespread voter fraud. This as Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power should he lose the election. Fmr. KY Secretary Of State Trey Grayson (R) is a member of the Transition Integrity Project, and he discusses what the Trump administration might pull come November.
Nils Gilman of the Berggruen Institute Discusses the Transition Integrity Project on Al Jazeera
(5 minutes)
Transition Integrity Project – The Thinking Conservative
This is a good compilation of information, including a 33 minute audio interview of Nils Gilman by KGNU’s Liz Lane. It also includes a pointer to the 22 page PDF: Transition Integrity Project Report
The Daily Beast — The Left Secretly Preps for MAGA Violence After Election Day
The progressive coalition Fight Back Table has been meeting to game out what happens if Joe Biden doesn’t win by a landslide. It’s not pretty.
Last week, a coalition of leading progressive groups gathered on Zoom to begin organizing for what they envision as the post-Election Day political apocalypse scenario.
Put together by the Fight Back Table—an initiative launched after the 2016 election to get a constellation of lefty organizations to work more closely together—the meeting dealt with the operational demands expected if the November election ends without a clear outcome or with a Joe Biden win that Donald Trump refuses to recognize.
Sources familiar with the discussions described them as serious with a modestly panicked undertone. A smaller FBT session last fall had talked about post-election planning, but those discussions were tabled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was the first time they were bringing the matter to the 50-plus organizations that make up the coalition. To formalize the effort, they gave it a name: the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center.”
Over the course of two hours, participants broached the question of what the progressive political ecosystem can functionally do in a series of election scenarios. They began charting out what it would take to stand up a multi-state communications arm to fight disinformation, a training program for nonviolent civil disobedience, and the underpinnings of what one official described as “mass public unrest.” And they pored over a report from the Transition Integrity Project, a bipartisan group formed in 2019, that analyzed various election-season scenarios and made clear the type of ratfuckery, corruption, and chaos that potentially was ahead.
“The potential for violent conflict is high,” the report noted….
The co-founder of the Transition Integrity Project, Brooks has conducted war games [Washington Post Article] to play out the range of Election Day and post-Election Day scenarios. And virtually all the outcomes, save one—a Biden landslide—have ended up facilitating a nightmarish fallout…
In real life, former (now aggrieved) associates of the president have warned [The Atlantic] that he will use extraordinary means to hold on to power. And Biden himself has openly worried that Trump might move to contest the election results if they don’t go his way. Beyond that, there has been very little said about what plans the Democratic nominee or his team have in store. Under law, Biden is restricted from coordinating with outside groups like those involved with the Democracy Defense Nerve Center….
The progressive leaders helping spearhead the Democracy Defense Nerve Center harbor no such illusions. Though conversations have just now begun dealing with the operational details of how to navigate life after Election Day, few if any anticipate a scenario in which Trump bends to elite opinion. Instead, the larger game plan is to apply pressure through mass mobilization….
While the sheer number of groups and volunteers involved in the effort has given organizers hope, there is some fear that they may not all be operating from the same playbook. Two sources involved with the FBT discussions said they worry Biden would concede a contested election too early, with an eye toward ensuring a peaceful transition of power. Inside the coalition, there is dispute over whether Biden should even concede if he wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, à la Clinton in 2016 and Gore in 2000.
Under that scenario, Eldridge said, his organization would not support mass mobilization. “I support the national popular vote,” he explained. “Our organization does advocacy for the popular vote… Unfortunately, the Electoral College is the system that we have.”
But the Transition Integrity Project noted that there would be immense pressure on Biden to fight it out if, for the third time in 20 years, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote but didn’t take office. In a simulation they ran, Team Biden “encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as ‘Cascadia,’ to secede from the Union” unless structural reforms were made. In exchange for Trump getting the presidency, for instance, Republicans would need to agree to abolish the Electoral College, give Puerto Rico and D.C. statehood, and divide California into five states for better Senate representation….
I included the Daily Beast article to show the type of Fear Mongering that was going on in the progressive sphere. Is there any doubt that some of those spooked by such reports might help set up peaceful MAGA on Jan 6th?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I have theorized for years, the Brits never gave up their attempts at taking over the USA. In 1913 they managed a ‘soft coup’ by installing the Federal Reserve Central Bank and passing the 16th Amendment to transfer American wealth to that central bank. Once the central bank was in place they moved to gain control of the media in 1915 (LINK), and shortly thereafter they started their very profitable endless wars.
One core feature of the Cabal is their contempt and hatred of the middle class. A class that challenges their absolute rule of the world.
KARL MARX & COMMUNISM
Notice that the target of Karl Marx is the bourgeoisie–the middle class, and NOT the aristocracy or Ruling Elite.
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
A second point that a lot of people miss is that the goals of the Fabian Socialists and the Marxist Communists are the same. Just the methods are different. The Fabians favor a gradual take over, like we have experienced here in the USA, while the Communists favor bloody revolution. Both are inventions of the Brits.
“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Funny how we have the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews pounded into our heads as kids but you very seldom hear about the slaughter of Russians, the worst Democide of the 20th Century. After all sympathy for the Russian people would not fit the Cabal’s twin goals, Communism as the reason for the CIA to over throw governments and Communism taught to US students as the best form of government. (Logic? We don’t need no stinkin’ logic!)
DEMOCIDE: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
By R.J. Rummel
169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist RegimeIII 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
I wonder what the total is for the CIA’s murder of Americans via the forever wars and drugs?
Click here to see the deadliest wars for Americans
The Cabal has had a plan in place for well over a century. A plan to re-establish a feudal society. That is what Agenda 21 is. A modern version of feudalism with the transnational corporations taking the place of the Aristocracy. LINK As an example of implementation: November 29, 2012 The Demise of Christchurch City New Zealand Since then we have seen similar activity here in the USA.
I wrote a lot about this back in 2014 at Tony Heller’s old website because Global Warming was the ‘Fear’ the Cabal was using to push their agenda.
Rothschild/Aristocracy connection to Agenda 21:
World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020
http://www.carbonplanet.com/navigating_the_carbon_economy (Now dead)
Actual World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007 — Washington, D.C. – May 2007
Footnotes:
3. New Carbon Finance, “UK in Pole Position as Carbon Funds Surge – but More Funds required”. Press release 4 April 2007, www.newcarbonfinance.com.
38. Analysis from new Carbon Finance estimates that in the last six months, nearly US$4.7 billion of new capital had entered the market at the end of March 2007 (Source: New Carbon Finance, “UK in Pole Position as Carbon Funds Surge – but More Funds required”. Press release 4 April 2007, www.newcarbonfinance.com). Most of the newly raised money was of private origin and was targeted to the sell-side (project development and carbon asset creation). The remainder (about 15%) sits on the buy-side for direct purchases by public and private compliance buyers, compliance funds and investor funds targeted at the compliance segment. The same source estimated in addition that even more funds are required to bring to the market enough emission reductions to satisfy the appetite of compliance buyers.
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak: Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement – Guardian UK
…The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”….
If you bother to look you find Shell Oil’s finger prints all over CAGW.
Shell is also very much entangled with the Banksters. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are major shareholders
Shell Oil wanted to push natural gas. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC, shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios by Ged Davis.
Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.
Then you have Shell Oil, BP and a Rockefeller Foundation funding the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil, founder of Roxanna Oil; former President of Arco International” on the Advisory Board of Richard The Liar* Muller’s consulting firm, Muller & Assoc. (Muller is known for the so-called BEST temperature Data set.)
Who owns Shell?
The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, although the size of its stake has long been a source of debate. Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 and united the Rockefellers and Rothschilds as did the merger of their two banks. The Queen of England was also a major stockholder.
SHELL and WWF:
Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family, a Nazi, is the Founding President of the World Wildlife Fund. (WWF) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996. John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981.
Ruud Lubbers served three terms as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1982 and 1994, thus becoming the longest serving Dutch Prime Minister…. He continued in Parliament as Senior Deputy Leader, and later Parliamentary Leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance. He became President of WWF International on 1 January 2000.
Then we look at the Shell Board of Directors. (This is from 2014. There are new members now.)
Peter Voser
Chief Executive Officer
… a member of the Swiss Federal Auditor Oversight Authority from 2006 to December 2010. In 2011…Josef Ackermann
Non-executive Director
… He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Zurich Insurance Group Limited and of Zurich Insurance Company Limited, positions he has held since March 2012.…he held a variety of positions in corporate banking, foreign exchange/money markets, treasury and investment banking. In 1990, he was appointed to SKA’s Executive Board, on which he served as President between 1993 and 1996. He joined Deutsche Bank’s Management Board in 1996 with responsibility for the investment banking division and, from 2006 and 2002 respectively until May 2012, he was Chairman of the Management Board and of the Group Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank AG. He is a member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, the Board of Directors of Investor AB and a number of advisory boards. He also has various roles in several foundations and academic institutions….
Charles O. Holliday
Non-executive Director
… He served as Chief Executive Officer of DuPont from 1998 to January 2009, and as Chairman from 1999 to December 2009…. He previously served as Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Chairman of The Business Council, Chairman of Catalyst, Chairman of the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section, and is a founding member of the International Business Council. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and a Director of Deere & Company.Gerard Kleisterlee
Non-executive Director
…He is Chairman of Vodafone Group plc, a member of the Supervisory Board of Daimler AG, and a Director of Dell Inc.Christine Morin-Postel
Non-executive Director
…. she was Chief Executive of Société Générale de Belgique, Executive Vice-President and a member of the Executive Committee of Suez S.A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crédisuez S.A. and a Non-executive Director of Pilkington plc, Alcan Inc. and EXOR S.p.A. She is a Non-executive Director of British American Tobacco plc.Sir Nigel Sheinwald GCMG
Non-executive Director
…He was a senior British diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the USA from 2007 to 2012. He joined the Diplomatic Service in 1976 and served in Brussels (twice), Washington and Moscow and in a wide range of policy roles in London. He served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000 to 2003. Prior to his appointment as British Ambassador to the USA, he served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet Office Defence and Overseas Secretariat. He retired from the Diplomatic Service in March 2012….Linda G. Stuntz
Non-executive Director
She is a founding partner of the law firm of Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., based in Washington, D.C. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation as well as matters relating to government support of technology development and transfer. From 1989 to 1993, she held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Energy, including Deputy Secretary. She played a principal role in the development and enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.From 1981 to 1987, she was an Associate Minority Counsel and Minority Counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. She chaired the Electricity Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Energy from 2008 to 2009, and was a member of the Board of Directors of Schlumberger Limited from 1993 to 2010. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Raytheon Company. [Raytheon does mostly government contracts G.C.]
Jeroen van der Veer
Non-executive Director
….He was Vice-Chairman and Senior Independent Director of Unilever (which includes Unilever N.V. and Unilever plc) until May 2011 and is Chairman of the Supervisory Boards of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and of ING Group. He also has various roles in several foundations and charities.Gerrit Zalm
Non-executive Director
…He is Chairman of the Board of Management of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., a position he has held since February 2009. Before joining ABN AMRO, he was the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands from 1994 until 2002, Chairman of the VVD Liberal Party in the Lower House (2002) and Minister of Finance from 2003 until 2007. During 2007 until 2009 he was an adviser to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007), Chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board (2007-2010), an adviser to Permira (private equity fund) (2007-2008) and Chief Financial Officer of DSB Bank (2008). Prior to 1994, he was head of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and held various positions at the Ministry of Finance and at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. ….
Rather well connected to governments, NGOs and various banks, were they not? The present lot exhibit more ‘Woke’ credentials.
The Bankers/Cabal have already captured the corporations.
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 Leveraged Buyouts/Hostile Takeovers during Reagan’s Admin. dismembered and killed wealthy, no-debt mid-level American corporations and transferred the accumulated wealth to the Banksters/Cabal. Worse, this meant ‘American’ corporations were no longer actually American. Thus this was a very important move by the Cabal.
Under Reagan
…A leveraged buyout (or LBO, or highly-leveraged transaction (HLT), or “bootstrap” transaction) occurs when an investor, typically [a] financial sponsor, acquires a controlling interest in a company’s equity and where a significant percentage of the purchase price is financed through leverage (borrowing).👉The assets of the acquired company are used as collateral for the borrowed capital,👈 [BEFORE it was acquired] sometimes with assets of the acquiring company. Typically, leveraged buyout uses a combination of various debt instruments from bank and debt capital markets…
The leveraged buyout boom of the 1980s was conceived by a number of corporate financiers, most notably Jerome Kohlberg, Jr. and later his protégé Henry Kravis. Working for Bear Stearns at the time, Kohlberg and Kravis, along with Kravis’ cousin George Roberts, began a series of what they described as “bootstrap” investments…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout
What they did was take corporations WHICH HAD NO DEBT, like the one I worked for, 👉 borrowed against the assets — THAT THEY DID NOT OWN!!👈 — and used that money to buy stock in the corporation so they could take control. (I do not know why this was not ILLEGAL!)
…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…. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html
This led to a feeding frenzy that was started…
…In January 1982, [by] former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon and a group of investors[who] 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.The success of the Gibson Greetings investment attracted the attention of the wider media to the nascent boom in leveraged buyouts. Between 1979 and 1989, it was estimated that there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts valued in excess of $250 billion…..—WIKI
NOTE THIS WAS IN JANUARY 1982. What happen before then???
𝗢𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟯𝟬, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭, 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗸𝗹𝗲𝘆 𝗝𝗿. 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗛𝗶𝗹𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗛𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻. 😵
Did that shooting influence the Reagan administration’s failure to prosecute the buyouts under Anti-Trust? The possibility certainly sheds a different light on that shooting…
The 1980’s leveraged buyout feeding frenzy allowed the Transnational Financiers to GUT American industry. But even more important it got a transnational foot into the door of US Politics. I will address that below.
….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.
January 29, 1989 New York Times
The 1980’s leveraged buyout feeding frenzy was followed by the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on 1 January 1995. The take-over of US corporations by the transnationals, helped set up the transfer of US manufacturing to third world sweat shops. These transnationals and financiers, (see The Network of Global Corporate Control above) would have zero loyalty to the USA since the actual control of corporations was transferred FROM stockholders/corporate boards TO the financiers/cabal. Thus we see that corporations can now be used as a WEAPON.
Even the IMF agrees:
Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence Sept 2012
…New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012). At the same time, while the new convergence mentioned above has reduced the distance between advanced and developing economies when they are taken as two aggregates…
Remember those terms Convergence, Interdependence and Divergence.
Convergence of the poor with the middle class ultimately leading to a new serf class.
Interdependence of nations ultimately leading to ‘Global Governance’ aka a world government.
Divergence of the elite from the middle class leading to a new Ruling Class.
Those are the goals, and that reality dovetails with the prophetic book, The Rockefeller File (1976) by Gary Allen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So why else was gaining control of corporations so very important?
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Jan 2010
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and 👉the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.👈 While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.
Judgment:
Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Building on Buckley v. Valeo, which held that spending money can be critical to exercising the freedom of speech, the majority also ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights and can spend money to exercise them. The Court overruled precedents that restricted political spending by unions and corporations during elections, finding that they were constitutionally permitted to support or oppose candidates, as long as they did not contribute to their campaigns or parties directly. As a result, the section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that banned independent expenditures by corporations and unions was unconstitutional. It appeared that the majority used a heightened standard of review, similar to strict scrutiny. Kennedy noted that the government does not have the authority to level the playing field among speakers such that each speaker has equal access to the public. He used a vision of the First Amendment as protecting the marketplace of ideas from intrusion by the legislature, even if that intrusion was based on concerns of fairness. He was not persuaded that corporations would corrupt the marketplace of ideas by flooding it with speech that they supported because of their funding advantages. Kennedy felt that corruption was limited to quid pro quo exchanges and that all citizens should be able to make their own judgments on whether certain information is valuable, without having some information removed from the marketplace of ideas in advance. However, the majority held that provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that required disclosure of who funded the speech were valid here, although they might not be valid in all instances.
The “I GOTCHA” is PACS
What is a PAC?
A PAC is an entity formed by individuals, organizations, corporations, or unions to raise funds to help influence elections. They impact elections because they can donate to candidates and campaigns (within defined limits) and conduct independent expenditures (without limits) to help support the election or defeat of candidates.
PACs endorse and financially support specific candidates and causes. Individuals and corporations donate to the PAC, then the committee donates the pooled funds to political campaigns or uses them to create political ads, perform field work, or do other election-related activities.
PACs can also conduct independent expenditures (sometimes called IEs). The FEC defines an independent expenditure as “an expenditure for a communication, such as an advertisement through a website, digital device, application, advertising platform, newspaper, TV or direct mail” that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate and “is not made in consultation or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of” a candidate, their authorized agents, or a political party or its agents…
The purpose of PAC fundraising must be to impact elections. PACs raise funds to influence elections in a few ways. They can do so by:
- Donating directly to political campaigns for any local, state, or federal office (*traditional PACs only, Super PACs cannot)
- Paying for political advertisements on TV, social media, or other communication channels (*as long as these advertisements are not made in cooperation with the candidate or at their request — check with your relevant election authority to ensure compliance with relevant laws)
- Financing get out the vote (GOTV) initiatives to help turn out voters for important candidates or causes
Essentially, PACs raise funds to attain more political power and use it to influence elections in ways that align with the group’s ideals and goals.
Super PACs • OpenSecrets
Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis — the super PAC’s choice — in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.
As of March 19, 2025, 2,502 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $5,096,825,517 and total independent expenditures of $2,688,997,939 in the 2023-2024 cycle...
FEC | Legal | Speechnow.org v. FEC
Summary
On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limit the contributions that individuals may make to SpeechNow.org, and the contributions that SpeechNow.org may accept from them, violate the First Amendment. Background
SpeechNow is a nonprofit, unincorporated association organized as a section 527 entity under the Internal Revenue Code. The organization was formed by individuals who seek to pool their resources to make independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. SpeechNow plans to accept contributions only from individuals, not corporations or other sources prohibited under the Act. The individual plaintiffs wish to contribute to SpeechNow, both in federally permissible amounts and in amounts exceeding the federal limits… The plaintiffs contend that the Act unconstitutionally restricts their association guaranteed under the First Amendment. By requiring registration as a political committee and limiting the monetary amount that an individual may contribute to a political committee, SpeechNow and the other plaintiffs assert that the Act unconstitutionally restricts the individuals’ freedom of speech by limiting the amount that an individual can contribute to SpeechNow and thus the amount the organization may spend. SpeechNow also argues that the reporting required of political committees is unconstitutionally burdensome.
The plaintiffs asked the court to find the contribution limits, reporting requirements and political committee registration requirements unconstitutional as applied to their proposed activities. The plaintiffs also requested that the court preliminarily and permanently enjoin the FEC from enforcing these provisions against SpeechNow and the individual plaintiffs….
But it did not stop at individuals. It expanded.
fec.gov Political Action Committees (PACs) | FEC
Super PACs (independent expenditure only political committees) and Hybrid PACs (political committees with non-contribution accounts)
Super PACs (independent expenditure only political committees) are committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other PACs for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity.
Hybrid PACs (political committees with non-contribution accounts) solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and other political committees to a segregated bank account for the purpose of financing independent expenditures, other ads that refer to a federal candidate, and generic voter drives in federal elections, while maintaining a separate bank account, subject to all the statutory amount limitations and source prohibitions, that is permitted to make contributions to federal candidates…
So the result of all these different moves is that a transnational corporation (or union) can now contribute unlimited funds to influence US elections as long as they have an ‘office or affiliate’ in the USA and thus claim to not be a ‘foreign entity.’ And even with all this maneuvering POTUS Trump STILL WON!
So the cabal had to escalate to a Color Revolution.