Fitts: The Ultimate Cold Call

An oldie but goodie:

Narco-Dollars For Dummies (Part 3)
How The Money Works In The Illicit Drug Trade

By Catherine Austin Fitts

 

In late June 1999, numerous news services, including Associated Press, reported that Richard Grasso, Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange flew to Colombia to meet with a spokesperson for Raul Reyes of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the supposed “narco terrorists” with whom we are now at war.

The purpose of the trip was “to bring a message of cooperation from U.S. financial services” and to discuss foreign investment and the future role of U.S. businesses in Colombia.

Some reading in between the lines said to me that Grasso’s mission related to the continued circulation of cocaine capital through the US financial system. FARC, the Colombian rebels, were circulating their profits back into local development without the assistance of the American banking and investment system. Worse yet for the outlook for the US stock market’s strength from $500 billion – $1 trillion in annual money laundering – FARC was calling for the decriminalization of cocaine.

To understand the threat of decriminalization of the drug trade, just go back to your Sam and Dave estimate and recalculate the numbers given what decriminalization does to drive BIG PERCENT back to SLIM PERCENT and what that means to Wall Street and Washington’s cash flows. No narco dollars, no reinvestment into the stock markets, no campaign contributions.

It was only a few days after Grasso’s trip that BBC News reported a General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress as saying: “Colombia’s cocaine and heroin production is set to rise by as much as 50 percent as the U.S. backed drug war flounders, due largely to the growing strength of Marxist rebels”

I deduced from this incident that the liquidity of the NY Stock Exchange was sufficiently dependent on high margin cocaine profits (BIG PERCENT) that the Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange was willing for Associated Press to acknowledge he is making “cold calls” in rebel controlled peace zones in Colombian villages. “Cold calls” is what we used to call new business visits we would pay to people we had not yet done business with when I was on Wall Street.

I presume Grasso’s trip was not successful in turning the cash flow tide. Hence, Plan Colombia is proceeding apace to try to move narco deposits out of FARC’s control and back to the control of our traditional allies and, even if that does not work, to move Citibank’s market share and that of the other large US banks and financial institutions steadily up in Latin America.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0202/S00069.htm

And here’s a small fraction of the nightmare that drug lord bill clinton’s plan colombia has unleashed:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/monsanto_and_the_drug_war/

It’s important to understand that the “drug war” they’re waging in latin america has nothing to do with stopping the flow of drugs.  It’s all about ensuring that the proceeds from the drugs are laundered through wall street.  It’s about market share.  Uncooperative growers like FARC are killed.

If a ‘narcodemocracy’ means that the government is completely corrupt, that the government is involved in drugs, that the influence of drug traffickers reaches the top levels of government, then the United States is a ‘narcodemocracy’.”

Michael Levine, 25 year DEA veteran
Author of “The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic”

Is D.O.S. cyberattack against US banks a false flag?

“Over a month ago we featured an article titled The NWO Agenda Would Move Forward with This One Simple Act, which stated the one event that could accomplish all of the agenda’s goals in one shot would be “a false flag cyber attack on Western banking institutions that they can pin on Iran.”

“Please watch this exact scenario unfold in this short ABC news clip from a few days ago:

“With President Obama ready to sign an executive order to control the Internet in the name of cyber security, could it be more obvious that this “cyber attack” is a total set up? Especially since all versions of Internet control legislation have failed to pass in normal government channels bothdomestically and internationally.

“Are we expected to believe that sophisticated Muslim hacktivists attacked US banks because they were angry about a movie that was produced in America?  That’d be like attacking Afghanistan or Iraq after 15 Saudis supposedly attacked us, ohh wait…that did happen.

“Is this really the best story they can come up with?  It was so predictable that it makes it that much more laughable. But the motive being pinned on the pathetic anti-Muslim movie is the real kicker.

“It’s sad to see Richard Clark in the video above actually take this seriously.  Talk about an establishment sellout.

“I call major bullshit on this story.  It stinks to high heaven.  What do you think?”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cyber-attack-on-us-banks-is-an-obvious-false-flag.html

The Captives of the Bankers’ Central Bank

From the BIS web site:

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FYR), Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus the European Central Bank.

http://www.bis.org/about/orggov.htm

Libya isn’t yet on this list but I imagine it will be soon.  (http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/)

Note China’s central bank is included.  The PBC charges interest on the money that it issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Bank_of_China#Interest_rates).   My guess is that the PBC is owned by the same secret cartel that owns the US and european central banks.  If so, this is another example of this cartel financing the military buildups of two potential enemies.

Professor Carroll Quigley, an insider groomed by the international bankers, wrote in Tragedy and Hopein 1966 of the pivotal role played by the BIS in the grand scheme of his mentors:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/basel_3.php

Also see “Tragedy and Hope: The Money Changers’ Agenda for World Government” in the reference section.

These people HAVE to be Luciferians just to compete under their business model.

The Banksters’ New Boogeyman

With the confrontation between Japan, Taiwan and China over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea showing no signs of abating, all eyes in the Asia-Pacific region are once again on China’s increasing naval might and military assertiveness. Seen as one piece in a larger puzzle, a picture begins to emerge that portrays China as a rising economic and military might, a potential future superpower competitor with the world’s dominant power, the US.

The pieces of this puzzle are many and varied, including China’s growing expenditures on military, aviation, and naval technology, its development of cyberwar capabilities, its expanding territorial claims in the South China Sea and their attendant territorial disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam, and this latest squabble with Japan, which has given Beijing an opportunity to announce their intention of deploying drones in the region by 2015.

Seen in this light, China is a menace, and the growing US military presence in the region that we have been documenting on the Eyeopener in previous weeks is a necessary, perhaps even welcome counterbalance in the region.

This is a narrative that is being popularized in the mainstream press at the moment, but like all narratives, it leaves out certain key facts that give the story an altogether different inflection. Rather than China as a growing menace, the pieces of this puzzle reveal a China that is being set up to be the new boogeyman in a 21st century Cold War environment, or even a Chinese leadership that is a willing accomplice with leaders around the globe in the creation of a new, global system of governance that will rise from the ashes of future conflict.

Although Nixon’s 1972 trip to China is generally seen as the beginning of the normalization of relations between the US and the communist Chinese, he was in fact preceded there in 1971 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a protege of David Rockefeller. In 1973, Rockefeller himself was to visit China as Chairman of Chase Manhattan to establish the first US correspondent bank to the Bank of China. Rockefeller has remained on the speed dial of the Chinese communist leadership, and on a trip to China in the wake of 9/11, then-Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised him for his personal contributions to Sino-US relations.

Over the course of the 1990s, the process of outsourcing America’s manufacturing capacity began in earnest and, helped along by businesses like Wal-Mart which source products extensively from China, China surpassed the US as the largest manufacturer in the world last year. More and more companies have set up manufacturing capabilities in the country or relocated altogether, including Hakes Marine, GE Healthcare, Bayer HealthCare, and Honda, all of which have relocated partially or entirely to China in the past year. This movement has led billionaire George Soros to declare China on multipleoccasions to be the engine of the New World Order.

In the 1990s, even as the international trade agreements that would help to see the rise to dominance of China were being hammered out, the Clinton administration helped a Chinese-owned shipping company in its bid to lease the old naval base in Long Beach, California, a deal which Congress nixed. Clinton also personally approved the transfer of radiation-hardened chipsets to China in 1996, advanced technology that could be used in nuclear warfare.

In recent years the US Department of Commerce’s own Bureau of Industry and Security has released studies detailing how US technology transfers have been essential in the rise of China as an economic and military power.

These facts are all easily documentable, but not often raised in discussion of the rise of China because it presents a puzzling paradox: why are key elements of the American government, business and armament establishment actively aiding the Chinese government if the US and China are involved in military tensions, resource wars, currency disputes and economic competition? As we shall see, there are possible answers to this question, but first it is important to note that this phenomenon of a superpower funding its erstwhile enemy is not without precedent. In fact, as I highlighted in a recent episode of The Corbett Report podcast, Hoover Institute research fellow Antony Sutton spent decades of his life documenting the voluminous evidence that the US did precisely this with its two great enemies of the 20th century: the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

Again, the question may be raised as to why this type of cooperation would take place at all between superpowers and their supposed enemies. What purpose could it serve? Looking at some of the reasons for US support of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks might provide us with a clue. …

http://www.corbettreport.com/china-menace-accomplice-or-boogeyman/

And why would the owners of the federal reserve want to set up a military confrontation between the US and China?  To milk us, of course:

The history of the U.S. national debt is inexorably tied to its many wars. The resolution this week of the so-called debt ceiling crisis is no different. Not only did a compliant Congress agree to fund President George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with emergency appropriations; it did so with borrowed money, raising the debt ceiling 10 times since 2001 without quibbling.

So how did the Pentagon fare in the current budget battle? It looks like it did fine. Not to be confused with the soldiers and veterans who have fought these wars.

“This year is the 50th anniversary of [Dwight] Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech,” William Hartung of the Center for International Policy told me while the Senate assembled to vote on the debt ceiling bill. Speaking of the late general turned Republican U.S. president, Hartung said: “He talked about the need for a balanced economy, for a healthy population. Essentially, he’s to the left of Barack Obama on these issues.”

Michael Hudson, president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, explained the history of the debt ceiling’s connection to war:

“It was put in in 1917 during World War I, and the idea was to prevent President Wilson from committing even more American troops and money to war. In every country of Europe—England, France—the parliamentary control over the budget was introduced to stop ambitious kings or rulers from waging wars. So the whole purpose was to limit a government’s ability to run into debt for war, because that was the only reason that governments ran into debt.”

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/8/2/war_debt_and_the_president

Speculators only make money during times of change, because they bet against the economic status quo.  That’s where the really big money is.  They had both the means and the motive to destroy the US economy, and that’s exactly what they did, with the bipartisan assistance of the clinton and bush2 administrations (see “Bush helped engineer subprime collapse” in the reference section).  It’s the financial-military-industrial complex.

Bypassing the internet choke point

The most hierarchical (and thus controllable) structure on the net is the domain naming system, the DNS, a networked database which your computer uses to translate hostnames like “google.com” into numeric addresses like 74.125.225.8, which can be used by internet routing hardware to direct packets to their destination.   The routing hardware is a form of distributed autonomous intelligence (designed by darpa to survive nuclear war) but the DNS is under highly centralized control.   My suggestion is that you figure out what your favorite sites are and generate a list of their numeric adddresses.  There are web sites that do dns lookups and print out the address but the most sure-fire way of avoiding possibly manipulated data is to use your own computer to do the lookup.  In windows you can do this by opening a command window and typing “nslookup google.com” for instance.  If you want to save the output, the following appends it to the file “addresses.txt”:

nslookup google.com >>addresses.txt

On the mac the “host” command works better.

If and when “they” shut down the net because of some kind of virtual false flag attack, or just because el presidente feels like it, the first thing they’ll do is take over the DNS.  But as long as they don’t issue a router virus that propagates throughout the net (a distinct possibility) your numerically-addressed packets will still get through.  Just type the number in your web browser instead of the host name.  The site’s links to other sites won’t work unless they use numeric addresses (unlikely), but at least you can get to the specific site you’re after.

Free PDF of Infowars Magazine

I haven’t read it yet but if it represents the best of Alex Jones’ operation it’s probably worth printing out and distributing, whether you consider yourself a conservative or a liberal or an economic anarchist or a political one.  The only question is whether you’re awake enough to recognize we’re all in this together.

If you sign up to their email newsletter you can download the magazine pdf:

http://www.infowars.com/newsletter-sign-up/

9/11 In Your Face

Hello?  Is anyone listening?

It’s laughable how the so-called skeptics who doubt such a conspiracy could happen without public exposure disprove their own thesis simply by clinging to it in the face of overwhelming physical evidence.   They and their capacity for self-delusion (a predictable consequence of well known psychological defense mechanisms) are what makes such coverups possible.  It’s embarrassing to watch them go through such contortions in pubic.  They really should do some reading in introductory psychology.

Warmongers Discuss How “We” Can Go to War With Iran

A pretty brazen call for a false flag against Iran.  He goes through a litany of staged provocations for previous wars and concludes the “traditional way america goes to war” would be in US interests.  He doesn’t mention 9/11 but give them another 20 years and such talk will be permissible in public.   He also doesn’t mention who he means by “we”, but chickenhawks always defer to others to fight their wars for them.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/lobbyist-launch-staged-provocation-to-start-war-with-iran.html