/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16778243]

Are there books out there which actually explain who "runs the world", what their goals are and how this is manifesting today? I don't mean conspiracy books but actual research ie here are the biggest corporations, here are people involved in these corporations, here are what they are pursuing, here are the IMF, the EU, the World Bank, the FED, the UN, here's what these guys do. Here are some very rich individuals, the 0.01%, this is what they do. Here is what I believe is happening and where we are going. Do any books exist in this vein? If it's a conspiracy, I'm willing to accept it but with evidence beyond some nefarious meeting 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.16778259]

Spoiler: God runs the world

[Anonymous No.16778266]

>>16778243
I'm also not interested in political philosophy or stuff like that, I have plenty of those pure theory books.

I'd be interested in something where actual research has been done in practice. The corporations get named, the supranational organizations get named, the extremely wealthy/powerful individuals get named, the names get named and everything is connected to a coherent whole. If there is no coherent whole at least coherent parts that explain who is pursuing what. I'm not so much interested in conspiracies that are relegated to some occult meetings but never connected to actual names and present-day corporate world. As an example people constantly mention Soros, but nobody explains why he is doing what he is doing, is it just a fun game for one very old and very rich dude or are there other interests aligned there?

[Anonymous No.16778286]

>>16778266
>>16778243
just lurk enough on pol and you will unironically find your answer.

[Anonymous No.16778287]

>>16778266
People constantly mention how Rothschild own everything but again, what is this everything, where is the evidence? How do Rothschilds connect to for example Big Tech giants like Google and other Sillicon Valley behemoths? This stuff always exists out there vaguely but nobody puts it together. So I'm not interested in that. I'd like a book that has at least an idea about what is going on internationally, with big corporations, banks, international organizations (UN, IMF, EU etc.) and the 0.01%. It's frustrating how hard it is to get your hands on a book like this but there's thousands out there with masonic conspiracies (I'm not saying it's not a conspiracy but at least form some sorts of connections to the present world, find some money-trail, beyond just old dudes dancing in robes around a goat).

[Anonymous No.16778294]

>>16778243
The Communist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.16778306]

>>16778286
I've been to /pol/ plenty and they never string it together. It's always left vaguely up in the air as to how it all works. Your picture is precisely the stuff I'm trying to avoid. People just name individual incidents but never connect it to a consistent whole. It's just this conspiracy happened here, this conspiracy happened there. I don't have anything against that kind of theory that is in your picture, it could even be true. But it doesn't offer anything concrete. Who needs the FED and for what reason, who specifically are the Illuminati Banksters?

[Anonymous No.16778316]

>>16778294
not interested in political theory or vague action plans

[Anonymous No.16778330]

>>16778306
Does the FED just magically print dollars into their bank accounts? Like some dude at the FED presses a button and it deposits 1 billion into Rothschild account?

[Anonymous No.16778333]

>>16778287
12 banks are part of the Federal Reserve System. The list of those 12 banks is easily accessible, as well as the owners/founders of those banks.

[Anonymous No.16778362]

>>16778333
No it's not.

>But the New York Fed – by far the most important of the regional banks – as a matter of policy has previously not disclosed the capital share holdings of its 70-plus member banks. A New York Fed spokeswoman in September declined to comment on the record about the matter.

“To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t had a handle on who owns the capital stock of the New York Fed,” says Connie Razza, chief of campaign and policy at the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group that has pushed for greater transparency.

[Anonymous No.16778372]

>>16778362
oh actually we do. citibank and jp morgan and other banks own the ny fed. so if you do a little bit conjecture, the federal reserve is owned by commercial banks.

[Anonymous No.16778416]

>>16778372
interesting now we're going to find out another thing which i suspected. the next logical question is who owns the commercial banks? well not surprisingly other large institutions own commercial banks, not to mention commercial banks own shares of their "competitors" often.

now the next logical question is who owns those large institutions? and largely I think you find out they own shares in eachother.

So you have this closed circle of same companies owning same companies. Some names repeat constantly...Vanguard, BlackRock and so forth. And those companies in turn seem to be owned by other large institutions that constantly re-appear. Various funds, commercial banks again JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs etc.

So it appears large institutions own the FED, and large institutions also own eachother.

What can we make of this?

[Anonymous No.16778458]

>>16778416
that theres a very select few kikes at the top muddying the waters as much as they possible can so noone can find out shit

[Anonymous No.16778487]

>>16778416
This is Citigroup's ownership. Now if you take any other large institutional behemoth you will get roughly the same names appearing.

Now here comes the interesting part if you take Google or other big tech companies you get similar names BUT here's the catch, Big Tech companies shares don't have equal voting rights, meaning it seems some individuals have huge power relative to their share number. I found an article where Page and Brin have huge voting power relative to their vote share and I found an article that says this is a trend in big tech corporations. Is it the same for banking behemoths and other institutional players? Worth exploring who actually holds the power if its not just by shareholder %. Never heard about anything like this on /pol/ or from any conspiracy nuts. But in 10 minutes of research I found something interesting and worth exploring further. This is the type of thing I'd like to see in a book, but instead of 10 minutes of research a few thousands of it. But nobody seems interested in doing this stuff. It's easier to talk about old dudes dancing around a goat.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18302102/ipo-voting-multi-dual-stock-lyft-pinterest

[Anonymous No.16778492]

>>16778458
you're just lazy. typical of conspiracy nuts. they'll spend an hour searching for some hidden numerological connection or shit (which might be there I'm not denying it) but because their research stops at actual money trails they never understand how the thing actually works systemically.

[Anonymous No.16778514]

Lmaoing@ chuds. Investment funds have lotsa stocks in big companies??? (5% stock holdings! W O W!)
You're all complete schizos.

[Anonymous No.16778515]

>>16778487
Just want to say. To me it's mind-blowing that nobody seems to be doing this kind of research. Checking ownership structures, checking how a certain company might name its board of directors, who names the CEO and by what formula, what kind of voting rights do shares have. This is all the stuff that would actually lead you to answers and help you analyze how this system works. What the 0.01% actually do. People get excited and worked up over numerological astrological shit (which has its place, don't get me wrong and can help connect the dots) but show absolutely zero interest in researching and finding the actual holy grail that resides in corporate documents.

[Anonymous No.16778532]

>>16778514
Schizos would spend more times (sometimes fruitfully) making bizarre connections.

Simply looking into balance sheets, ownership structures, voting powers, and other systemic shit is pretty normal to verify or prove something false. Right now I don't see how large companies having a long list of institutional investors and also owning eachother and the FED somehow proves that Rotschild owns the world. I'm open to the idea but I don't see yet how it works mechanically. I hoped there existed a book that explains the mechanics of it, but it doesn't seem to be out there.

[Anonymous No.16778559]

>>16778532
Again I've only spent 10 minutes on this, maybe I naively thought that somebody actually did serious research and published his thesis on this.

Right now the initial findings simply seem to suggest that there is no "layer behind it" other than simply large institutions acting in their interest together largely against powerless masses of people. Pretty standard stuff. They probably conspire and devise evil shit against the general masses because it's in their interest that you are just a consoomer, but that's it. Also it seems like the Silicon Valley in particular seems to have some megalomaniacal tendencies of individuals in particular but they are probably not completely isolated in that regard. Frankly, at first sight it just looks like large capital having mostly common interest that often go against the plebs.

[Anonymous No.16778603]

>>16778559
>Frankly, at first sight it just looks like large capital having mostly common interest that often go against the plebs
Welcome to humanity. Oppressing plebs since Ancient Egypt.

[Anonymous No.16778611]

>>16778603
It's disappointing precisely because it's not surprising. It would be way more exciting if it was a conspiracy. But it seems more likely that it's just a multitude of different conspiracies who can probably all align at least in one point: that they keep the plebs poor consoomers and hoarde money and power for themselves.

[Anonymous No.16778614]

>>16778243
There is no goal, mostly everything that happens happens because of various systems put in place after WW2 that are acting autonomously.

[Anonymous No.16778623]

>>16778287
Rothschilds are irrelevant other than as a historical curiosity, they don't actually manage a whole lot of money all in all.

[Anonymous No.16778626]

>>16778614
I'm open to that idea but has anyone done an analysis on where those systems are leading us? Into what kind of society?

[Anonymous No.16778630]

>>16778416
Remember that these large institutions are also old institutions that were originally owned by a single or a few people.
Banks work for their shareholders. The families that have held large shares of those banks for generations have a lot of sway.

[Anonymous No.16778631]

>>16778611
Actually now that I think of it, I'm still somewhat open to the idea of conspiracy. But this would be that the elite simply require you to be black-mailable before you can sit at the table with the big boys. This way you can do all the in-fighting all you want but you can never screw them entirely. You can check out but you can never leave.

[Anonymous No.16778639]

>>16778515
Because it requires knowledge of economics and business. And effort, lots of effort.

[Anonymous No.16778649]

>>16778630
>>16778630
>The families that have held large shares of those banks for generations have a lot of sway.

Is there a study that points out which families own large amounts of shares in large instiutions today? A list of names, percentage of shares and which institutions would be helpful. It seems somewhat surprising that nobody has embarked on this before though, could it be that the numbers simply aren't that interesting? I'm sure there are a number of big players who hold a lot of sway, but that seems more like a fragmented whole that probably holds common interst in preserving their capital but otherwise is not driven by an actual single conspiracy. Not that it needs to be, the desire to preserve capital would all lead them into the same direction anyways.

[Anonymous No.16778654]

>>16778639
And also if people found out about it you'll have to shoot yourself in the back of the head three times.

[Anonymous No.16778666]

>>16778639
it actually doesn't require any knowledge. you can google for everything ie "how does vanguard name its board of directors", every question you might have is available a google search away. it would take some time and effort though yeah and organization of data. but schizos spend hundreds of hours on weird relations between astrology, occult and elite and none on this.

[Anonymous No.16778671]

>>16778654
that crossed my mind. maybe the book about this doesn't exist because everyone that wrote one got suicided lol

[Anonymous No.16778693]

>>16778626
It's mostly made to be utilitarian, as well as hopefully as efficient as possible.

Norbert Wiener and von Neumann are probably the most influential thinkers for designing such systems.

[Anonymous No.16778719]

>>16778649
I assume that their financial information is well protected and not accessible to randoms on the internet.
Like this is just the Rothschilds for example,
>Since 2003, a group of Rothschild banks have been controlled by Rothschild Continuation Holdings, a Swiss-registered holding company (under the chairmanship of Baron David René de Rothschild). Rothschild Continuation Holdings is in turn controlled by Concordia BV, a Dutch-registered master holding company. Concordia BV is managed by Paris Orléans S.A., a French-registered holding company. Paris Orléans S.A. is ultimately controlled by Rothschild Concordia SAS, a Rothschild's family holding company
Family companies owned by other companies that are in turn owned by the original family.

>but otherwise is not driven by an actual single conspiracy
No, there is no single conspiracy. There are countless conspiracies which form a larger conspiracy and it can basically be summarized as modern day feudalism or whatever. Nobles ruling the plebs.

[Anonymous No.16778779]

>>16778719
>I assume that their financial information is well protected and not accessible to randoms on the internet.

afaik financial information of public companies have to be public. so if they have ownership in them it would be easy to find. it could only be "concealed" if a private company holds shares of a public company and that private company is owned by those families. of course you can create quite a large and varied string of owernship there. but if you look at the biggest shareholders of the biggest institutions there don't seem to be these long strings of ownerships, instead it seems circular. the only way to hide this would be if a significant amount of smaller shareholders of these same companies are then in fact owned by those families, so you'd need several dummy companies to get a decent % of ownership all being owned by the same family for them to exert real influence on it. because if you think about it there's really only three ways to exert influence: ownership which gives you the power to name and remove people, black-mail which allows you to control people and sponsorship which allows you to promote people (they can still turn back on you if they don't need you anymore though, so that would likely have to be paired with blackmail to work).

[Anonymous No.16778801]

>>16778779
well now that I think of it a theory could be that the circular owernship between large institutions is just smokescreen. that could hold if the smaller shareholders in these large institutions can be mostly tied to a single background. this would mean even if your total is a modest number, given that the largest shareholders are just fluff, it would mean that you actually hold the most power in the company. but in this case you'd have to prove that these smaller shareholders are all tied to a single or few actual sources behind them ie these families that people conjecture.

[Anonymous No.16778826]

>>16778801
But like you said. Ultimately I think the most likely scenario is simply that there is no single conspiracy but a multitude (sometimes competing) conspiracies which can however unite on some common points, as you've mentioned modern feudalism would be one of them. Then probably you have various individual actors like Soros, Rothschild whatever acting as simply certain parts for this common ground of the elites. Maybe some deal with banking, some with propaganda and subversion (like Soros) and some with blackmail, sponsorship and political control and they basically offer these capabillites for those purposes where the elite *can* in fact agree upon on what is beneficial to them.

[Anonymous No.16778870]

>>16778515
Perhaps if you look into corporate structures you'll come to realise the board of directors on a lot of companies just consist of investment firms, owners of company's that got acquired by the conglomerate, and founding members (or their family).
Sure a lot of corporate fuckery happens at that level, since everyone is ultimately acting in their own interests. If they can get their own buddy's to be part of the board it makes it easier to steer the company in the direction they deem most profitable.

Ultimately there's massive no cabal or secret club. It's just beneficial for them to have a large social circle, which consists of other businessmen, politicians, etc in order to call in favours. It's not that people who find some secret get offed before finishing their book or whatever the fuck

[Anonymous No.16778887]

There isn’t much research on it because people who get too close to the truth get killed.

[Anonymous No.16778900]

>>16778887
so you're not close to the truth then?

[Anonymous No.16778917]

>>16778900
I had to stop researching. I couldn’t handle it anymore.

[Anonymous No.16778927]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16778931]

>>16778917
what's the summary of your research?

[Anonymous No.16778933]

[Anonymous No.16778957]

>>16778623
The family's combined wealth is over 2 trillion. That's far from insignificant.

[Anonymous No.16778988]

>>16778931
Generally speaking, there is no grand conspiracy. It’s a bunch of self-interested independent systems working autonomously. Like water sources feeding a river. The unintended consequence of this is people’s feet get stepped on (poor people usually).

[Anonymous No.16778997]

>>16778933
thanks this seems like a good suggestion

[Anonymous No.16779010]

>>16778988
The cyborg assassins have been dispatched.

[Anonymous No.16779071]

The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills, while admittedly a bit dated, describes the ruling class to a good extent. You do not have to postulate mysterious cabals or cryptic secret societies to get an understanding of them. Often there is a dynastic element to it where some ancestor to an influential family started a business empire or became a distinguished general and this reputation and the rewards that came with it carries down to their descendants and accumulates like compound interest. The first task of power is to secure it in perpetuity, so these families act to secure their position and to influence affairs so that they will continue to enjoy it.

Do not get lost in silly conspiracy theories that the world's wealthiest wish to transform society to conform to their vision and control the world. They cannot control the world, least of all because they would have to fight each other to do so. Power is inherently self-interested. Their primary goal, as the power elite, rather than as individuals, is to hold onto their power and expand it. These people are much more narrow minded than you might think. Besides their personal ambitions and pet projects, they want to keep being rich, that's about it.
Bill Gates does not want to push vaccines out of some conspiracy to control the world. He just has nothing better to do than put him mind to a problem he thinks he has the wherewithal to address. Bezos is the same with his space exploration company. At heart he's a nerd who wants to make star trek a reality. It's a pet project for him that, because everything else is more than taken care of, he indulges and invests in.

[Anonymous No.16779146]

>>16778243
Yes. So the first one that you should check out, the one that "names names" as it were is "Who Rules America? Power, Politics and Social Change" by Domhoff(See attached image, and his website here https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/)) This is a good starting point. He undertakes an explicitly sociological method and expounds multiple theories of power as they relate to his sociological framework. He's looking mainly at institutions and the individuals tied to them, moving between them. He largely omits attention to modes of governance.

From there, there's a few different paths you can take.

You mentioned the IMF and World Bank -- these institutions arise from the Bretton Woods system, which is the conference in which the United States and, to a lesser extent Britain, and to an even lesser extent the nations of western Europe, decided how they would organize the capitalist world economy after WWII.
Critical takes on this system would be something like "Capital as Power" (highly theoretical,though) by Nitzan and Bichler (their book "Global Political Economy of Israel is also highly recommended) (http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/overview.html).). Something also like Timothy Mitchell's "Carbon Democracy" is going to do a good job sketching global political economy from Bretton Woods to oil crisis (~1973) and thereafter. He has an essay in a book called the Road from Mount Pelerin that might be worth getting once you scratch the surface. That book Wendy Brown put out a book recently called "Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution" which has been instrumental in fortifying my understandings of contemporary issues of governance. Probe her bibliography.
Don't understand what I'm talking about? Maybe start with Robert Gilpin's Understanding Global Political Economy. It's very very VERY dry but will give you all the background you need on all this stuff. But he's not as critical or curious as I think you are about the IMF, World Bank so he lets alot of assumptions about their moral righteousness just sit.

Then there's many different directions to go. Jurgen Habermas' Postnational Constellation is very theoretical but overall good. Any essays by Sheldon Wolin on American democracy should be important to you. Read about Thorstein Veblen and his ideas. But overall, if you want the names named, check out who rules America and go from there. You can also get specific, seeking things like the Robert Caro bios of Lyndon Johnson or Robert Moses for case studies. This shit is big. Looking into will change your life and suck all your time..... but it is worth it! Domhoff is the place to start

[Anonymous No.16779163]

>>16778243
the shock doctrine by naomi klein
the brothers by stephen kinzer

[Anonymous No.16779181]

The people who really run the world live in a completely separate society and only interact with ours through middlemen, you will never EVER know their names or locations

[Anonymous No.16779196]

>>16779181
this. they live on a moon colony known as "lunos" to the initiated and feast on the pineal glands of pubescent boys during all meals

[Anonymous No.16779203]

>>16779146
Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.

[Anonymous No.16779216]

>>16778933
This. It gives the names and addresses of the global ruling class and their top lackeys.

[Anonymous No.16779247]

>>16778957
No it's not. The richest members are worth between 1 and 2 billion dollars. I would guess that if you put all of the hundreds of Rothschild family members together, they would not be wealthier than Jeff Bezos, or even Bill Gates.

[Anonymous No.16779270]

>>16778243

[Anonymous No.16779273]

>>16778243
it's basically a meme. sure, some people are way more powerful than others, and they will use their wealth to get what they want on an individual basis, but there probably isnt some highly organized secret society thats trying to pull the strings of the entire world.

[Anonymous No.16779278]

>>16779247
It's not entirely about the amount of money you have, but the amount of power you can buy with that money. And the Rothschilds are very adept at that part.

[Anonymous No.16779283]

Read Bill Gates' blog and watch his videos.

[Anonymous No.16779284]

>>16779273
Why not? Just because you can't imagine it?

[Anonymous No.16779298]

>>16779278
They aren't. They are more or less irrelevant mid tier investment bankers that are only known due to being the subject of asinine conspiracy theories for more than a century.

[Anonymous No.16779309]

>>16779298
Disingenuous and false.

[Anonymous No.16779355]

>>16779309
This isn't the 18th century bud, they've been supplanted long ago.

[Anonymous No.16779372]

>>16779355
They have more competition nowadays perhaps, but to insinuate they hold no (indirect) power anymore now is bogus and you know it.

[Anonymous No.16779429]

>>16779372
How could they? Their pockets are far more shallow and their connections much weaker than many of the groups that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century, particularly in America.

[Anonymous No.16779433]

>>16778266
You should probably read about finance capitalism, for starters.

Don’t bother with retarded simplistic narration. The world runs itself under the dictates of capital.

[Anonymous No.16779448]

I've been interested in this question for some time, so I think I can offer some non-conspiratorial insight into this question. The short answer as to who rules the world is "nobody". Obviously the world is extremely complex and effectively an anarchy at the international level, and there's really no incentive for anybody to try to rule the whole thing beyond vain ambition. Instead, what you often see is extremely powerful actors basically cornering off their own slices of the global economic pie and agreeing to not bother each other from that point on. In Oil, Power, and War: A Dark History, Matthieu Auzanneau does a good job of explaining what this has looked like in the context of oil. Collusion at the turn of the 20th century basically led to the entire global oil supply comfortably going into the hands of a half dozen multinational companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil, immense profits locked in for each party. Or look at the Sykes–Picot Agreement, where two states (England and France) basically looted the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and divided up the Middle East according to where oil was. This event would basically define the entire history of the region from that point on and explain why it is such a clusterfuck of competing sectarian and political forces.

If you really want to understand who rules the world, you'll have to do some work. Here's a reading list I've put together and am working through:

History of oil (extremely important):
Oil, Power, and War: A Dark History (Matthieu Auzanneau)
The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (Daniel Yergin)
Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power (Steve Coll)
Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America (Christopher Leonard)
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (Ron Chernow)

History of international banking:
The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (Ron Chernow)
All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power (Nomi Prins)

Corporate lobbying, relationships between corporations and governments:
The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America (Margaret O'Mara)

General economic and financial history:
Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible (William N. Goetzmann)
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Niall Ferguson)
An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power (John Steele Gordon)

Concentration of wealth:
Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Thomas Piketty)
The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt (T.J. Stiles)
Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire (James Wallace and Jim Erickson)
The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (Brad Stone)
Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built (Duncan Clark)

Other/general history:
The Cold War: A New History (John Lewis Gaddis)

[Anonymous No.16779466]

>>16779429
>They have more competition nowadays perhaps, but to insinuate they hold no (indirect) power anymore now is bogus and you know it.

[Anonymous No.16779484]

>>16779466
Doubt it, whatever they've got is on the same tier as Prince Harry begging that Disney guy to let his wife voice something in a cartoon.

[Anonymous No.16779497]

>>16779146
Are you the political science PhD anon?

[Anonymous No.16779505]

>>16779484
Nah my man, the royal family has been nothing but puppets for a long, long time. The Rothschilds have far more influence still. Though perhaps not as much as they once used to, I'll give you that.

[Anonymous No.16779553]

>>16779505
>The Rothschilds have far more influence still
How? Their investment bank and asset management firm is so small that it's practically boutique and their foundation is just doing meme shit in Europe like buying violins for Sudanese refugees.

[Anonymous No.16779811]

>>16779497
No, just a hobbyist

[Anonymous No.16779842]

>>16778243
>what their goals are
Maximum efficiency, maximum growth, maximum control. The systems in place are mostly autonomous so there’s no real group running the show from above.

[Anonymous No.16779983]

>>16779553
You're either very naive or very disingenuous

[Anonymous No.16780651]

>>16778306
Because it's based entirely on conjecture. Are there higher powers than POTUS pulling strings? Probably. Are they entirely motivated by money? Probably. Are there Blue's Clues lying around that point the way to the bad guy? No, these are people whose names you and I will never know and whose faces we will probably never see. You can put pieces together and tie coincidences together that probably lead in the right direction, but that's about it and there's only so far you'll be able to go.

[Anonymous No.16780725]

>>16778287
Anon, think of the latter centuries of the Western Roman Empire. There were truly times when despite having an emperor or six, there was no one really running it. This was because at the point the Empire had become an entity unto itself with internal factions, economic incentives, social movements, and more just continuing to turn the motor even when there was no "great man" at the top. Real leaders are rare and we haven't seen one for a long while because life is good.

So who runs the world? It's too big a job for any one person or group. I suppose you could say that the governing force of the earth's governments at this time is the generation of wealth via trade and no matter what else happens, the trade routes and stock markets will be kept afloat for as long as possible. Everything else is a secondary consideration to the global id.

[Anonymous No.16780733]

>>16778243
heres some classic literature

[Anonymous No.16780879]

The Creature From jekyll island

[Anonymous No.16780953]

>>16779071
Pretty much this.

[Anonymous No.16781062]

>>16778243
Combine >>16779071 with >>16780725 for the best answer you can get.

[Anonymous No.16781356]

>>16778266
honestly most of it is already a matter of public record, but you'll need to sift through tax records and deed transfers to get to it. there's an entire ecosystem of private investigators who delve into this stuff for purposes of litigation

[Anonymous No.16781362]

>>16778287
black rock and vanguard will actually own almost everything between them before the decade is out

[Anonymous No.16781375]

>>16778330
no, the fed controls the money supply, which is generated when actual banks issue loans. hence why they adjust the interest rate. think of money like a crop and the fed is the farmer, with the soil/sun/water being the banking system

[Anonymous No.16781388]

The world is not 'run' in any meaningful way. No individual or group has any real control or influence over events. We are all being helplessly moved by currents of history we can't even understand or perceive let alone guide.

[Anonymous No.16781395]

>>16778649
they come and they go. all it takes is one useless generation to wipe everything out. the late stage rockafellers will sell what's left to the saudis for interpretive dance school money or whatever and the cycle continues

[Anonymous No.16781672]

>>16778927
nigger

[Anonymous No.16781672,1]

>>16779146
The Bretton Woods system was the creature of Harry Dexter White... who of course conservatives accuse of being a Soviet agent in the FDR administration. The USSR was still a war time ally and the idea was still they wanted them to be integrated in the post-war global economic system. The Soviets could of had influence there but, despite conservative conspiracies, they were to dumb to play their cards right. Keynes was there representing Britain and wanted to create an actual global currency but White outmanoeuvred him and got the US dollar (pegged to a fixed quantity of gold) at the centre of things.

>>16781375
>the fed controls the money supply
>which is generated when actual banks issue loans
The Fed has a mandate for price stability, they can't do that and force banks to go insolvent by "controlling the money supply". Private banks determine who is credit worthy and if they want to extend loans (create deposits) and as such the "quantity" of money in existence (besides federal government spending). Hell the Fed doesn't even intervene trying to buy up or sell cryptocurrencies and whatnot which is also a great example of how much control over money in the broadest sense they have.
>why they adjust the interest rate
Those rates don't have as much of an effect on spending decisions as you want to believe.

[Anonymous No.16781672,2]

>>16778243
The world isn't run because that implies competence, but it is controlled by about 400-500 people, and they are Jews working for the interest of the Jewish collective. Probably every European and Anglo prime minister is a closet Jew, from Sanna Marin of Finland to Scott Morrison in Australia.