patrick.net

Not at all. NY City and Chicago are famous for bought off politicians well before 1913.

HeadSet says

Not at all. NY City and Chicago are famous for bought off politicians well before 1913.

The Federal Reserve is the 3rd or 4th central bank in this county, not the first. You statement would also imply that when central banks have not been chartered, their agents simply vanished, or were frozen in time...

And of course you don't consider other central banks working toward bringing new countries into the fold. Bank of England has existed since before the founding of the United States.

True, but wasn't the difference that in 1913 it was now fiat currency? Federal Reserve Notes that could be printed at will rather than dollars backed by gold and silver?

HeadSet says

True, but wasn't the difference that in 1913 it was now fiat currency? Federal Reserve Notes that could be printed at will rather than dollars backed by gold and silver?

I think that's true. We had real silver and gold money before 1913, but the US ended silver coins in 1965 because the silver in a silver dollar had become worth more than a dollar because of the Fed's debasement. And then in 1970-something, the French got nervous and wanted their gold back, so Nixon severed the last remaining basis in reality for the dollar, because we literally did not have enough gold to meet US promises. Or so I understand it. Maybe someone else here understands it better.

Silver exchange, which is by far the more important standard, since silver is much more easily divisible for daily transactions, was remove in the late 1800's.

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1kvKpvqMQYwJE

I seriously think one of Nuland's goals was to kill off as many Ukrainian and Russian men as possible.

Maybe she just hates Slavic people, no matter what their government is.

How To Build a Patronage Network

The MacArthur "Genius Grant" is one of many leftist patronage networks that fund demoralization agents - call to action at the bottom

Founded in 1981, the MacArthur Fellowship Program awards ~25 Americans “Genius Grants” each year. The prize is $800,000 with no strings attached. There is no application or transparency on its selection process. Anonymous and confidential nominations are invited by the foundation and reviewed by an anonymous and confidential selection committee of about a dozen people. The main criteria is purely subjective: "Exceptional creativity and promise for important future advances… an investment in a person's originality, insight, and potential.” Translation - leftists grooming leftists.

A plan drawn up by the US Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr (b. 1891, d. 1967) which envisaged a postwar Germany as an agricultural, deindustrialized country which would be divided into a northern and a southern half, with the Rhineland, the North Sea coast, and other important strategic or industrial areas coming under international control.

WEF Is Dictating Canada’s ‘Climate Change’ Policies, Documents Show

The documents were unsealed in response to an Order Paper Question sent by Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis.

The documents reveal Trudeau’s “Environment and Climate Change” (ECCC) department paid the WEF to produce a report to draft the government’s environmental agenda.

The report included the economic policies for Canada’s ever-increasing carbon tax.

This "incentivized activism" company is looking to hire 7-foot, 300-pound "giants" to attend protests

In search of adding an undeniable aura of intimidation to protests and rallies, a Beverly Hills-based company is currently scouting for "giants."

The job advertisement by Crowds on Demand — which provides "incentivized activism" (LOL what a euphemism) for companies and groups — is looking for individuals over 7 feet tall and weighing a minimum of 300 pounds.

Crowds on Demand is looking to enlist up to 20 of these towering figures to create an "undeniable intimidation factor," bring a "giant to the gate," and help ensure their "protests are taken seriously and can achieve their intended impact."




The protest giants must be BIG but not too big to fit on an airplane. One of the perks of the job is being flown around for events and protests, and don't worry; extra legroom will be accommodated.

Some key "giant" responsibilities include:

Be a huge presence at protests, rallies, and events as part of a coordinated group.
Use your physical presence to contribute to the overall impact and visibility of the event. ...

According to the LA Times, when Crowds on Demand founder and CEO Adam Swart said they are looking for giants for an "intimidation factor," he actually meant it "in the positive sense."

"undeniable intimidation factor," bring a "giant to the gate,"

Big one missing there, that's been their go-to throughout history, war.

In a scandal dubbed the "#RKIFiles," over 2000 pages of documents (printer ink alert: half of which are blackened/retracted!) from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)—you know, the cornerstone of Germany's disease control—have been released. What they reveal is as close to a bureaucratic faceplant as you can get.

Here's the situation: Although the leaked documents indicate that the pandemic risk was deemed moderate to low, Germany aggressively imposed an economic shutdown. This action led to widespread business closures, a significant economic downturn, and numerous other detrimental effects resulting from the lockdowns, suggesting that the remedy was much more damaging than the problem itself.

And why? Because, if you can believe it, they were allegedly following "orders from outside." The natural question that follows is, "Who in the world has the audacity to order around a sovereign nation?" ...

Let's not mince words: this is a travesty of accountability. If these decisions were puppeteered by external forces rather than being anchored in solid science, it's not just a German problem—it's a glaring red flag for the majority of countries globally that took instructions from some “supranational” force, as Mike Yeadon said.

For me, it’s not difficult to see what the world’s real rulers are trying to achieve. They’re trying to obtain more power and control for themselves. In fact, they’ve largely already achieved this goal. The terrifying thought is they are far from done.

We know they are not finished because their most conspicuous initiative at the moment is their quest to slay the petulances of “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

The correct definition of misinformation/disinformation is any speech which challenges what authority figures say is the truth.

The world’s real rulers don’t want their pronouncements challenged as this would pose a grave risk to their continued rule and their ability to implement myriad programs that will effectively defeat, once and for all, human freedom.

As long as persuasive dissent doesn’t go viral, the Powers that Be know they will achieve their objectives, which are authoritarian world government much closer to the communist utopia envisioned by thinkers like Marx, Mao and Lenin.

But real communism is not the real goal either as communism was supposed to make every person equal. The modern form of communism, not unlike all previous forms of communism, ensures the world’s elite organizations will remain ultra powerful while the proletariat will beg for crumbs.

Who are the world’s elite organizations?
They are every important organization - those with great influence (and police-state powers) - including all governmental agencies and departments as well as international government organizations like the UN, WHO and European Union.

They are also all the major “crony” corporations which benefit from close ties to government and non-governmental organizations.

Plus, foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Rockefeller Foundation, which have more money than many nations and certainly more ideological commitment to deploy their resources to implement their agendas.

A simple method to define the establishment organizations would be to simply identify the world’s key authorized narratives and then ask yourself what organizations zealously support these initiatives (aka “The Current Thing.”)

In the last four years, any organization that vociferously supported all the Covid protocols would be examples of “captured” organizations which enthusiastically supported the Current Thing.

But these same organizations also support all the other ascendant political movements, such as the fight against (allegedly) man-made Climate Change, numerous wars or “interventions” to advance “democracy,” central bank digital currency and ever-more mRNA “vaccines.”

At the risk of offending folks who may think they sympathize with this week’s campus campers and their silly protest tents, hummus s’mores, and schwarma roasts, I would like to offer an alternative working hypothesis. To set the table, allow me to show you just how far we’ve come: you can now rent protestors right on the Internet. Behold “Crowds on Demand:”




It’s not bad work, if you can get it. How else do you expect kids with degrees in feminist themes in filmmaking to pay off their student loans? The team at Crowds on Demand promises all you need is money and a goal, and they’re ready to meet all your astroturf needs. They’ll even provide the ideas:




Crowds on Demand “delivers phenomenal experiences” including “even the most logistically challenging events.” Logistically challenging events? You mean, like CHAZ-style tent cities-on-the-green?

I’m not saying this was procured by Crowds on Demand. Who knows? The point is, if you can now one-click protests on the Internet, just imagine the kinds of resources to which the intelligence agencies and the political parties have access.

My best guess would be businesses like Crowds On Demand were formed by veterans of shady government-adjacent enterprises doing the exact same thing.

And don’t forget our foreign enemies.

We’ve all surely had dark thoughts that the CIA is really running the United States, including many media venues. Maybe that’s been true for decades, and we just didn’t know it. If so, let’s just say that it would explain a tremendous amount of what has otherwise been clouded in secrecy.

How would this be possible? Knowledge is power, and secret knowledge is full control. Even fake knowledge means power and control, as we found out in the phony Russiagate investigation early in President Donald Trump’s term. They hounded the new administration for years under a completely fake scenario in which Russia somehow got President Trump elected.

Yes, that was an intelligence operation all along, one directly designed to overthrow an election, a “color revolution” on our own soil.

How dare an agency not elected by the people and evading oversight and public accountability put itself ahead of the Constitution and the rule of law? It has been going on for many decades as the agencies have gained ever more power, even to the point of forcing a full lockdown of the United States and even the world under a false pretense.

None of this is verifiable precisely because of the secrecy involved. It’s not as if the intelligence community is going to send out a press release: “Democracy in America is an illusion. We know because we control nearly everything, plus we aspire to control even more.”

The incredulous among us will shoot back: Look at what you are saying! Your conspiracy theory is non-falsifiable. The less evidence you have for it, the more you believe it. How in the world can we argue with you? Your position is not really plausible, but there is nothing we can do to convince you otherwise.

Let’s grant the point. Still, let’s not dismiss the theory completely. Based on a New York Times piece that appeared last week, it contains more than a grain of truth. The article is titled “Campaign Puts Trump and the Spy Agencies on a Collision Course.”
“Even as president, Donald J. Trump flaunted his animosity for intelligence officials, portraying them as part of a politicized ‘deep state’ out to get him,” the article reads. “And since he left office, that distrust has grown into outright hostility, with potentially serious implications for national security should he be elected again.”

Ok, let’s be clear. If the intelligence community led by the CIA is not the “deep state,” what is?

Further, it has been proven many times over that the deep state is in fact out to get him. This is not even controversial. Indeed, there is no reason for these journalists to write the above as if President Trump is somehow consumed by some kind of baseless paranoia.

Let’s keep going here.

“Trump is now on a possible collision course with the intelligence community. ... The result is a complicated and possibly destabilizing situation the United States has never seen before: deep-seated suspicion and disdain on the part of a former and perhaps future president toward the very people he would be relying on for the most sensitive information he would need to perform his role if elected again,” the article reads.

Wait just a moment. You are telling us that all previous presidents have had a happy relationship with the CIA? That’s rather interesting to know. And deeply troubling too, since the CIA has been managing regime change the world over for a very long time and is now directly involved in U.S. politics at the most intimate level.

Any president worth his salt should absolutely have a hostile relationship with such an agency, if only to establish clear civilian control over the government, without which it’s not possible to say that we live in a constitutional republic.

And now, according to the NY Times, we have one seeking the presidency who does not defer to the agency and this is destabilizing and deeply problematic. Who does that suggest really rules this country?

Is the NY Times itself guilty of the most extreme conspiracy theory imaginable, or is it just stating facts as we know them? I’m going to guess that it is the latter. In this case, every single American should be deeply alarmed.

Crazy huh? As for the phrase “never seen before,” we have to push back. What about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, and Calvin Coolidge? They were all previous presidents, according to the history books that people once read.

There was no CIA back then. If you doubt this, I’m pretty sure that your favorite AI engine will confirm it.

One must suppose that when the NY Times says “never seen before,” it means in the post-war period. And that very well might be true. John F. Kennedy defied them. We know that for certain. The mysteries surrounding his murder won’t be solved fully until we get the documents. But the consensus is growing that this murder was really a coup by the CIA, a message sent as a lesson to every successor in that office.

Think of that: We live in a country today where most people readily admit that the CIA probably killed the president. Amazing.

It’s intriguing to know at this late date that the Watergate “scandal” was not what it appeared to be, namely an intrepid media holding government to account. Even astute observers at the time believed the mainstream narrative. Now we have plenty of evidence that this too was nothing but a deep state attack on a president who had lost patience with it and provoked another coup.

All credit to my brilliant father who speculated along these lines at the time. I was very young with only the vaguest clue about what was happening. But I recall very well that he was convinced that Richard Nixon was set up in a trap and unfairly hounded out of office not for the bad things he was doing but for standing up to the deep state.

If my own father, not a particularly political person, knew this for certain at the time, this must have been a strong perception even then.

You hear the rap that these agencies—the CIA is one, but there are many adjacent others—are not allowed by law to intervene in domestic politics. At this point and after so much experience, this comes across to me like something of a joke. We know from vast evidence and personal testimony that the CIA has been manipulating political figures, narratives, and outcomes for a very long time.

How involved is the CIA in journalism today? Well, you might suppose that as a traditionally liberal paper, the NY Times itself would be highly skeptical of the CIA. But these days, they have published a long string of aggressively defensive articles with titles such as “It Turns Out that the Deep State Is Awesome” and “Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe.” We can add this last piece to the list.

So let’s just say it: The NY Times is CIA. So too are Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, Slate, Salon, and many other mainstream publications, including major tech companies such as Google and Microsoft. The tentacles are everywhere and ever more obvious. Operation Mockingbird was just the beginning. The network is everywhere, and the practice of manipulating the news is wholly normalized.

Once you start developing the ability to see the markings, you simply cannot unsee them, which is why people who think and write about this can come across as crackpot crazy after a while.

Have you considered that maybe the crackpots are exactly right? If so, shouldn’t we, at bare minimum, seek to support a presidential candidate with a hostile relationship with the intelligence community?

Indeed, that ought to be a bare minimum standard of qualification. There is simply no way we can restore civilian control of government and constitutional government until this agency can be thoroughly reined in or abolished completely.

To set the table, allow me to show you just how far we’ve come: you can now rent protestors right on the Internet. Behold “Crowds on Demand:”