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.

Morgenthau Plan – Wikipedia

The Morgenthau Plan was a proposal to weaken Germany following World War II  by eliminating its arms industry and removing or destroying other key industries basic to military strength. This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr. It was first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. in a 1944 memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany….

That sure sounds like what was done to the USA via ‘leveraged buyouts’ in the 1980s thanks to Reagan’s laissez-faire attitude towards monopolies. According to Source Watch a long list of industries now have over 50% foreign ownership.

I worked for one of the targeted AMERICAN corporations. Here’s how they ran their business. Compare these methods to those of current corporations:

• Personnel were hired for the long term & for their ability to grow into other jobs.
• The corporation paid for continuing education and would even give time off for critical courses if you were going for a degree.
• NO CORPORATE DEBT
• SELF INSURED HEALTHCARE provided to the employees
• American owned
• Matching-funds if you bought corporate stock up to 10% of your salary. [This is why they succeeded in fighting off the first few hostile take-over attacks… Until the CEO mysteriously died of a heart attack at his desk. – A CIA hit maybe? Given what I know now it is not as far-fetched an idea as I first thought.]
• Committed to QUALITY, Religion & the USA.

What allowed the buyout of US corporations? Mutual Funds & Pension Funds held stock in them. The stock, purchased using YOUR MONEY or pensions and was held in YOUR NAME. But you didn’t vote it as a stockholder. Instead, the stock was VOTED by Fidelity, Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street and other financial institutions. They are the ones who voted to allow the leveraged buyouts.

Do not forget 401K plans. They are another control transfer mechanism.

Americans held approximately $7.3 trillion in 401(k) plans as of June 30, 2021, according to the Investment Company Institute. And the typical wealth held in an American family’s 401(k) has more than tripled  since the late 1980s…

In 1974, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted, [There is that 1974 date again. — GC] creating a governmental body that oversaw and regulated company-sponsored retirement and health care plans for workers.

ERISA temporarily halted IRS plans to severely restrict retirement plans through regulation in the early 1970s, according to the EBRI. The Act created a study of employee salary reduction plans as well, which the EBRI credits for influencing the creation of the 401(k) later on in the decade….

The modern 401(k) originated in earnest in 1978 with a provision in The Revenue Act of 1978 which said that employees can choose to receive a portion of income as deferred compensation, and created tax structures around it.

Section 401 was originally intended by lawmakers to limit companies creating tax-advantaged profit-sharing plans that mostly benefited executives, according to the ICI. Thanks to the interpretation of the section by businessman Ted Benna, the language evolved into the basis of the modern 401(k), as it enabled profit-sharing plans to adopt CODAs.

The law was signed by President Jimmy Carter and became effective at the turn of the decade….

Is it any wonder that ‘the little guy’ now has very little influence over the big corporations?

….

But it gets worse. In 2010 the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements and other forms of independent political expenditures. The founders, who hated corporations, must be rolling in their graves. SEE: What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

Supreme Court decisions that paved the way for big money in politics

Supreme Court Decisions

Believe it or not, before some recent Supreme Court decisions the American political system was not always so skewed in favor of the wealthy and powerful. In fact, dating back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, Congress limited the ability of corporations and labor unions to make contributions or expenditures in connection with political campaigns.

The influx of money from corporations, unions, and ultra-wealthy individuals in recent decades is due largely to a few poorly reasoned Supreme Court decisions. The best way to understand how our campaign finance laws became so horribly dysfunctional is to understand those decisions, which are explained in detail below.

• Buckley v. Valeo (aka The Court’s First Big Mistake) (1976)
• First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (aka The Citizens United of the 1970s) (1978)
• Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (aka The Nonprofit Case) (1986)
• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (aka The Good One) (1990)
• Citizens United v. FEC (aka The Worst Decision Since Dred Scott) (2010)
• Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (aka The Public Financing Case) (2011)
• McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (aka The Nightmare Continues) (2014)

The article goes through what each decision did to our election system.

One of the biggest problems as SourceWatch showed, is these corporations influencing our elections are no longer even AMERICAN corporations but are instead TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS run by FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – AKA the Banksters using the Mercantile system. However if an international corporation has offices in the USA, they can donate to political campaigns or run ads. So much for ‘American only’ influence in our political campaigns.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

H/T to Barkerjim who brought us this last Tuesday from Badlands.

WILTED IVY: The Death of Prestige and the Rise of Sovereignty

…Carroll Quigley, a historian with privileged access, wrote in Tragedy and Hope, [1966]

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim… nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands.”

Harvard, in this view, acted less as a neutral educator and more as a strategic hub.

They didn’t just teach economics.
They reinforced orthodoxy:

• Orthodoxy of narratives.
• Orthodoxy of institutions.
• Orthodoxy of “experts” upholding the prevailing system.

Graduating from an Ivy League school was less about critical thinking, and more about credentialing for access into the upper tiers of an increasingly globalized control system.

This is why the collapse of their perceived invincibility isn’t just symbolic, it’s tectonic.

Because if Harvard can fall, the entire scaffolding of manufactured consensus can fall with it.

If Harvard shaped minds, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street shaped markets.

These three asset managers didn’t merely participate in corporate governance, they dominated it. Their collective control over trillions of dollars made them the unofficial enforcement arm of the globalist order….

Good old Commie central. I lived near there in the Combat Zone. The area leans so far left, that three decades ago a friend, originally a card-carrying communist , had to register as a Republican and work the polls so Cambridge MA could hold their elections!

Also whenever a small company, such as the one I worked for or Spags, suddenly had problems from major changes in the way they did business and then went under, Hubby & I would say they had been HAVAAAAD business schooled. The method was to cut needed expenses such as ongoing maintenance so the bottom line looked really good for a couple years and then move on to the next victim.

The Spags case was special. The store was not open on Sunday because the Borgatti family was religious. The old man dealt in CASH ONLY, no checks or credit cards. Thus he could also get really good deals on merchandise by paying THAT DAY and NOT paying 3 months later as most stores do. Also since Massachusetts taxed inventory in warehouses but NOT goods in transit, he stored his merchandise in trailers in his lot. His retail store was a no-frills warehouse with the merchandise on warehouse racks in cut open boxes. (No additional stock boys.) When he died his kids hired a Harvard business grad. They started taking credit cards (5% paid to the card company by the vendor) fancied up the selling area ($$$$) got a warehouse ($$$$) and the business went under in a few years and was sold.

Today, those asset managers DO NOT LIKE TRUMP’S TARIFFS. Thus you are going to see price gouging such as bananas going from $0.39 to $0.59 in ONE WEEK. Allowing the Fake news arm of the globalists to jump in and BLAME TARIFFS.

5/23/25 – Volvo Cars CEO says its customers must pay for rising tariffs | Reuters

So TOUGH, buy a Chevy or a Dodge…

Trump will destroy world trade, but democracies can defend themselves — and each other | the Guardian UK

by Anders Fogh Rasmussen

We need a trade block, a D7, that would mirror Nato. An economic attack on one would be an attack on all

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a former prime minister of Denmark and former secretary general of Nato

[He writes:]

The postwar global economic order, with the United States at its centre, has created more prosperity than any other period in human history. [by sucking the USA dry. –GC] Yet as Donald Trump takes a sledgehammer to that economic order, America’s democratic allies face a choice. We can accept the new cost of doing business with the US. We can follow the US down a path of mutually assured economic destruction with an ever-escalating trade war. Or we can find new avenues to keep free trade alive.

[FREE? You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! –FREE to the EU but NOT to the USA that is getting raped via multiple methods. -GC]

My proposition? I believe we need a new platform for economic cooperation between the world’s seven leading democracies. Call it the “Democratic 7”, or “D7”. The EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea represent roughly 25% of global GDP and account for about 35% of global trade volume. Together, these democracies can help to shield each other from the threats of economic nationalism and coercion – while also championing democracy, the rule of law, and market economics…

GEE, the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea… What do they all have in common? WHY THE US MILITARY GUARDS THEM!

What happens if the USA under Trump joins BRICS?

This problem was also identified by Angelo M. Codevilla (may he rest in peace) in July of 2010.

America’s Ruling Class—And the Perils of Revolution

…The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party—and its vision is revolutionary.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and The Wall Street Journal) on the right to The Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America.

The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” …

The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter….

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

…The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”….

And thus the Tea Party was formed and ATTACKED by both the Democrats (LINK 1 and LINK 2) followed by the Republicans — Chamber of Commerce to Spend $100 Million to Destroy Tea Party. I guess the big transnational corporations did not like the idea of the serfs organizing.

Here is an example of the types of articles you would see in academic circles.

A Nation Dispossessed: The Tea Party Movement and Race — 2011

Leonard Zeskind

Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, USA

Critical Sociology 0(0) 1–15 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journals

Abstract

This analysis combines both qualitative information and quantitative data. The author reviewed numerous first person reports of Tea Party rallies, conferences and meetings from every corner of the country, and read most of the movement’s own literature. The Tea Parties are described as a unique movement appearing at a specific historical moment. The movement encompasses constituent national networks, core members and more loosely aligned supporters. Its supporters are overwhelmingly white and middle class. Matters of race and national identity motivate many Tea Partiers as well as a sense of dispossession from their place of privilege in the racial order. This analysis takes at face value the movement’s dress, symbols and invocation of the constitution, as well as its claims to embody the aspirations of a narrow body of ‘real Americans’. By making an exclusionary claim on the nation’s founding moments, they actually set themselves apart from other Americans.…

Conclusion
Social movements do not last forever. More often than not, they have one or another or a combination of three fates. One, they are either victorious and decline after reaching their goal. Two, they are defeated outright. Three, they are co-opted by some larger institution.

The militia movement that emerged in the 1990s, for example, was defeated following the
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by a concerted campaign of civic opposition and government repression. Militia groups have reappeared, but the movement itself is gone as of now. To go back further in history, the Ku Klux Klan and other white-minded thugs that emerged during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War were essentially victorious in re-establishing the system of white supremacy in the former Confederacy, and the Klan dissolved effortlessly into the Democratic Party before the end of the century. The Klan in the 1920s may have suffered from the scandals surrounding its leadership, but the movement did not die until after it won a change in the 1924 immigration law that protected Anglo-Saxon hegemony for another generation. After that it basically closed up shop, except in the Deep South. The Klan, the Citizens Councils, the Birchers
and the segregationists in the 1950s and 1960s were decisively defeated by the black freedom movement, and they were left standing with empty hands after Governor George Wallace’s independent presidential campaign in 1968. Only the Republican Party gained after it adopted its infamous ‘Southern Strategy’.

The decisive moments that will decide the Tea Parties’ fate have not yet occurred. The movement’s sights are set squarely on November 2012. If they win back the presidency for the Republican Party, the movement might or might not dissolve into squabbling factions. If they perceive that they have lost that election, or the Republican primaries before it, an internal power struggle may or may not split it irrevocably apart. Win, lose or draw, however, the Tea Party movement has already left important markers on America’s political landscape: First, in the current debate over economic policy and the national debt, they have moved the discussion toward fiscal restraint and de-regulation. They stand in the way of environmental protection and other measures by which the federal government might promote the common good. Of more long-term consequence, however, will be its legacy in the arena of race. Please consider that the Tea Party movement may be a precursor of an even larger revolt by supposedly dispossessed white people as the expected population and demographic shifts occur in the decades to come.

Keywords Tea Party, Tea Party movement, nationalism, racism, white dispossession, white majority fears, white nationalism

Good Grief the Tea Party was NEVER, EVER about RACE. It was about the Federal Reserve, Fractional Reserve Banking, TOO MUCH TAX and not enough FISCAL RESTRAINT! By ignoring the complaints and driving the Tea Party underground the Globalists forced the birth of MAGA.

…..

Wolf Moon in a comment thread gets into more of this information and its connections to today via Jack Smith.

I did research this. What I know is that his name is John L. Smith, where L is weird and I forgot what it is.

And he was indeed an attorney for the ICC/ICJ in the Hague – even Politico fact-checks this as TRUE, with lots of details.

But THIS is the most important part.

I did a Twitter thread on the guy, last year.

The Hague is a city in the Netherlands that is the home of U.N.’s International Court of justice and the International Criminal Court. So Jack Smith worked for the Globalists. — GC

You can see the entire thread using this URL: https://xcancel.com/WOLFM00N/status/1674123794301046800

TEXT from the first few tweets.

The entire problem of “John Smith” (yes, that’s his real name) as special counsel is explained by this great article on Smith’s insane war against the Tea Party movement. The guy will relentlessly push bad theories until other people get into trouble.

Jack Smith’s Tortured History With Republicans in Congress

This guy John Smith is literally, personally, WHY there was a Tea Party IRS scandal. Without him, no scandal. He’s the one who pushed the IRS into criminal persecution of conservatives. His DOJ then had IRS people pleading the Fifth to hide crimes against American citizens. [VIDEO]

Wolf Moon@WOLFM00N

28 Jun 2023

IMO, dirty judge Merrick Garland and Obama DOJ handler Lisa Monaco chose Smith not to win the case, but to drive Trump out of politics. Smith did exactly that to John Edwards. Smith LOST his case against Edwards, but drove him out of politics for good.

Trump special counsel Jack Smith lost the John Edwards case — what might that mean?

Wolfm00n gives more examples of Smith’s sucessful lawfare cases used to destroy political opponents.

….

So, getting back to Angelo Codevilla’s article, WHERE did all that 2008-9 bank bailout money actually go??? Why to our European Masters of course. SEE: The Federal Reserve’s Covert Bailout of Europe And the American Tax Payer got stuck with the TRILLIONS in debt AS USUAL.

It is interesting that POTUS Trump is FINALLY going after the EU that has been taking advantage of the USA since WWII. FINALLY, the US might stop hemorrhaging wealth and lives.

…

TRANSNATIONAL 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….

Exposing the Financial Core of the Transnational Capitalist Class

Introduction

In this study, we decided to identify in detail the people on the boards of directors of the top ten asset management firms and the top ten most centralized corporations in the world. Because of overlaps, there is a total of thirteen firms, which collectively have 161 directors on their boards. We think that this group of 161 individuals represents the financial core of the world’s transnational capitalist class. They collectively manage $23.91 trillion in funds and operate in nearly every country in the world. They are the center of the financial capital that powers the global economic system. Western governments and international policy bodies work in the interests of this financial core to protect the free flow of capital investment anywhere in the world…

The Transnational Capitalist Class (2000), Leslie Sklair argued that globalization elevated transnational corporations (TNC) to more influential international roles, with the result that nation-states became less significant than international agreements developed through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other international institutions.8 Emerging from these multinational corporations was a transnational capitalist class, whose loyalties and interests, while still rooted in their corporations, was increasingly international in scope. Sklair wrote:

The transnational capitalist class can be analytically divided into four main fractions: (i) owners and controllers of TNCs and their local affiliates; (ii) globalizing bureaucrats and politicians; (iii) globalizing professionals; (iv) consumerist elites (merchants and media). .  . It is also important to note, of course, that the TCC and each of its fractions are not always entirely united on every issue. Nevertheless, together, leading personnel in these groups constitute a global power elite, dominant class or inner circle in the sense that these terms have been used to characterize the dominant class structures of specific countries...

This is why the Supreme Court decisions to give these TNCs control of our political campaigns was so detrimental to the USA. It explains why the Republicans and Democrats are globalists and not patriots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And in the GOOD NEWS DEPARTMENT:

TRADING MAYORS ☙ Tuesday, May 20, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS

A Major Hat-tip to barkerjim for introducing me to C&C News.

… Rounding out today’s accountability trifecta, on Sunday the Washington Post ran an intriguing story headlined, “Trump Justice Dept. considers removing key check on lawmaker prosecutions.” The “key check” is a Biden-era rule that forbids Attorneys General from investigating public officials for corruption without first getting permission from the DC field office. You can guess how often that happens.

According to leakers (“three people familiar with the proposal”), federal prosecutors across the country may soon be able to indict members of Congress without pre-approval from “lawyers in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section,” or PIN, which is safely settled in Washington, DC where politicians can keep a wary eye on them.

Even better, under the new plan, FBI investigators and prosecutors would also be freed from having to ‘consult’ with the section’s attorneys “during key steps of probes into public officials.” In other words, even when the DC office did green-light an indictment, it still micromanaged the whole investigation.

Currently, the DOJ’s manual requires that PIN’s attorneys must approve —not just be consulted on— any charges against members of Congress. It doesn’t happen often, to say the least.

WaPo, probably intentionally, missed the painfully obvious point: a special oversight privilege for public officials provides them with a special tier of justice that other Americans do not enjoy. WaPo whined that the Public Integrity Section’s role was to “ensure that cases against public officials are legally sound and not politically motivated.”

But … what about us? Wouldn’t it be better and fairer to ensure that cases against all Americans are legally sound and not politically motivated, and not just public officials?

The ironically named Public Integrity office has already “dramatically shrunk” during the Trump administration, plunging from around 30 prosecutors by the end of the Biden administration to fewer than five today. One was fired, some rage-quit over the dismissal of the DOJ’s case against New York’s Democrat Mayor Eric Adams, while others have been “detailed to different sections in the department,” such as the division of Indian Affairs. In Trump’s first week in office, he fired PIN Director Corey Amundson.

It sure makes you think. Say you were planning to initiate wide-scale investigations into members of Congress, maybe for NGO abuse, insider trading, or general self-enrichment. This kind of thing would probably be your first move. Just saying.

C&C News on Tariffs

DULY PROCESSED ☙ Saturday, May 17, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS

President Trump and his team appear to have no intention of losing Congress in next year’s midterms. And after seeing Trump’s scorched-earth tariff plan, imagine what similar kind of comprehensive strategy they might be deploying to completely destroy the Democrat brand. That is what I believe is happening.

The Democrats are getting further and further behind.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine that the next 18 months sees a steady series of increasingly damning disclosures about Biden’s lack of a real presidency plus the mounting evidence of 2020’s stolen election?

Remember, just like they gained access to the Biden Audio, the Trump Team now has access to all that information, too. They have receipts….

Whoopsies! Sorry, experts. This week, Politico ran a story headlined, “Tariffs have little impact on prices, defying forecasts.” Unexpectedly!

On Tuesday, the Labor Department reported that prices only rose at an annualized rate of 2.3 percent, the smallest increase since 2020— before the pandemic. And that was in spite of tariffs. It’s almost like Trump’s tariffs have had the opposite effect the experts sagely predicted.

An honest media would call the experts to account, and require them to explain why they were wrong. But Politico’s story lavishly applied the passive voice (“prices were expected to climb”), obscuring who was wrong, generously giving unreliable experts a pass. Oh well.

From Shadow Stat Alternate Inflation Charts

….The CPI-U (consumer price index) is the broadest measure of consumer price inflation for goods and services published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

While the headline number usually is the seasonally-adjusted month-to-month change, the formal CPI is reported on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, with annual inflation measured in terms of year-to-year percent change in the price index.

In the charts to the right we show two SGS-Alternate CPI estimates: One based on the pre-1990 official methodology for computing the CPI-U, and the other based on the methodology which was employed prior to 1980.

Please note:  Our Data Download is currently only providing the 1980-Based numbers, but 1990-Based numbers will be introduced shortly.