Before we get started, I would like to re-arrange this title….
Ah! There.
The word “facts” get thrown so many times, I’m starting to think it’s becoming a verbal confetti in a Mardi Gras parade of emotions that want something to defend their personal feelings towards something and call it “facts”.
I’ll tell yu what’s “facts”.
When you put your hands in water you’re getting wet. Put your hands in a flame you get burned. Jump out of a ten story building you’re going to fall to the ground below. Based on the laws of gravity, heat from the flame, and the molecules of water, the facts will show your body what facts are regardless of your feelings towards them.
Now that we got the “facts” part out of the way, let’s explore the five families “allegedly” controlling the world.
Now before we get into the nitty-gritty, this is the Court of The Diary. That means these powerful families need a defense. I’ve been curious to see what it would look like if there was someone who actually spoke on their behalf. In other words; facts don’t need explaining (you know, water don’t have to prove it’s not dry?), but accusations, conspiracies and allegations do. Just like in the court of law; the defendant lives in a nation where YOU’RE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT…if that wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t be called a defendant, for if you’re innocent first, why defend? Defend what? So all this “innocent until proven guilty” is all bullshit, and most people I come across prove that point every time I mention the Rothschild, Rockefeller and Charles Manson.
And let’s not forget Adolf Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
So here we go, and I’ll act like their attorney. Remember, they have a right to a defense and their side of the story. Right?
As you begin to understand world governments don’t have your best interests in mind — that enemies of the State could more aptly be called enemies of the globe’s corporate and banking elite — power comes sharply into focus. (Those) who actually hold the power control the world’s economies, and it’s clear the fates of over 7.4 billion souls now inhabiting the planet are, at best, the least of their concern.
I object your honor! I actually agree that governments DON’T have you best interest in mind. Because not every person has the same interest. How do the government know who’s interest is apart from the other? Your own interest has to do with your own “state” of mind. If anyone interfere with your interest, aren’t they an enemy of your state of mind? And can you please tell the court your own independent definition of the word “elite” and “enemy?”
Regarding “7.4 billion souls”. Is that a proven count of people around the globe from your own personal account? Are you trusting the source you got this information from? And have you accounted the possible millions of indigenous and “off the grid” tribes as well?
No further…
Of those at the top of food chain, so to speak, a small collection of families dictates both domestic and foreign policy — mainly through fuelling “war” and conflict for the good of the military and pharmaceutical industries, and to a greater extent, corporate and central banks.
You mentioning here domestic and foreign policies. Are you currently a member of each bodies of government here in the states as well as all over the world?
You’re accusing my clients of “dictating” these policies by fueling war including the military and pharmaceutical companies. Are you a major shareholder, or on the board of these companies affected?
What’s your personal feelings towards corporations?
In order for military to work, you need willing troops, correct? And where does these troops come from?
Do they have the independent ability to choose rather to join the military or not?
In your independent definition, what is war? And do it require a compliance from that soldier for war to happen?
You mentioned pharmaceuticals. How many people who choose to exercise homeopathic approaches to their illness prefer prescription drugs than those who choose not to?
I would assume that you know all the “facts” about these families so I assumed you would know my last question. How many people depend on the pharmaceuticals for their health treatment?
Didn’t they make a choice to spend their money on these pharmaceuticals when they get a prescription?
No further…
Five families, in particular, have made a killing off killing — from the enormously lucrative business of debt it creates to the industries feeding off the plundering of world resources — and therefore control the world.
When you say “made a killing off killing”, what do you mean by that? Can you elaborate?
My understanding you say the business of debt is lucrative. Who request debt? I’m curious because from my personal experience, people go to the bank voluntarily to get a loan, a mortgage or apply for a credit card. No one forces them to buy it they just want it, what’s the crime in that?
If the business of debt is so lucrative, why aren’t you capitalizing on it?
You alledged my clients use industries to “feed off the plundering of world resource”. Do you have any physical evidence and proof of this allegation? Did you see them create these industries?
No further…
5. Rothschild
Perhaps the most well-known among those five are the Rothschilds, whose dominance of central banks, nefarious insider trading, and nearly invisible hand in world governance — without consideration for the greater good — frequently earns the blanket description, evil.
I always say that “bad” and “evil” is within the eyes and ears of the beholder. In other words, one way is bad to one person while that same way is good to the other. Now you mentioned “well known”. By whom? Did you know Mr. Rothschild in person?
What’s the “greater good”? What does that mean to you?
And what is evil from your own personal definition?
Would it make sense to say that not everyone in this planet have the same feelings or opinions of “good”, “bad” and “evil” as you?
No further…
Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s dealing in rare coins and antiques in Frankfurt, Germany, in the 1760s earned a rich patronage, allowing him to broaden his focus to include banking by the 1790s. In its 2005 list of 20 of “The Most Influential Businessmen” of all time, Forbes describes Rothschild as “a founding father of international finance,” who “helped invent modern banking by introducing concepts such as diversification, rapid communication, confidentiality and high volume.”
Carrying on the various aspects of the family businesses, Rothschild’s five sons “effectively formed a multinational bank.” During the Napoleonic Wars, they facilitated“loans to warring regimes and traded in cotton, arms, and wheat in defiance of Napoleon’s ban on British exports” — cementing the family’s prominence in political circles as well as influence over governmental affairs. Nathan Mayer Rothschild formed the eponymous bank in London and financed the Duke of Wellington’s interests during those wars.
Estimates of the Rothschild family’s net worth vary greatly, in part because Mayer Amschel dictated a male-only inheritance structure in his will, forcing female descendants into family marriages to maintain their grasp on wealth. Additionally, the sheer number of family members and locations of Rothschild financial and business dealings make assessing the totality of family wealth virtually impossible — though it’s rumored to be in the hundreds of billions.
Cloaked in secrecy for centuries, rumors concerning the Rothschild family run the gamut — including the widely held suspicion it maintains a degree of control over the U.S. federal reserve. One defining fact about the Rothschilds — noted by both establishment historians and so-called conspiracy theorists, alike — has been its astonishing abilities to not only maintain such a high degree of wealth and influence, but to keep numerous businesses under family control over such a long period of time.
Mergers and partnerships aid have absolutely assisted the Rothschilds’ rise to power, such as the 2012 purchase by the Rothschild Investment Trust of a 37 percent stake in Rockefeller Financial Services — which cemented the family’s financial ties to the second dynasty in this list.
I’ve actually heard this story before. The question I have for you is…
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I’ll be the first to admit I wasn’t there when he had his “antique coin business”, but the thing that stuck out to me was he started a business, and had clientele who voluntarily did business with him.
Where’s the crime in that?
He diversified his company’s portfolio, and someone came to him to finance some wars. Well, as a businessman would he let a good deal go cold? Is war personal, or it it just business? Can a bank control what you do with the loan they gave you when the money’s in your bank account? Is it the bank’s fault after you make the transaction?
According to the allegations, it looks to me as Rothschild is being accused of being a very well calculated and successful businessman. And, his entire descendants are being prosecuted for maintaining the family business.
So the question is this; who should be prosecuted, the one who wrote the check (Rothschild), or the one who cashed it (your politician)?
Who should be prosecuted, the bank who underwrote the mortgage, or the one’s buying the home?
No further…
4. Rockefeller
Son of a conman, John Davidson Rockefeller effectively began to solidify his American empire after buying out several partners who owned Cleveland’s largest oil refinery in 1865 — which became the foundation for the formation of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870. By then purchasing rival refineries and distributing its oil around the world, Standard — and Rockefeller — established a staggering monopoly on the industry, cornering some 90 percent of America’s refineries and pipelines.
He made them an offer, they sold. The basics of trading. However my question is; were you there when the transaction was executed?
Rockefeller’s pursuit of the market extended to every facet of Standard’s business, and “In order to exploit economies of scale, Standard Oil did everything from build its own oil barrels to employ its own scientists to figure out new uses for petroleum by-products,”according to History.com. Simply labeling Standard Oil a monopoly not only undercuts the company’s breadth, but downplays the savage and covert tactics Rockefeller employed to maintain its control over American oil.
What does “savage” mean to you? And what do you mean by “covert”?
The word “covert” has such a dirty word-like connotation doesn’t it? Is covert another simplier way of saying ‘not letting your left hand know what your right hand’s doing’?
Thanks in part to a series of 19 articles by Ida Tarbell, published in 1902 by McClure’s Magazine, the U.S. attorney under Pres. Theodore Roosevelt sued Standard Oil of New Jersey under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Over the course of the 1908 trial, Standard Oil’s dubious practices came to light — including secret deals with railroads, corporate spies, and bribes of elected officials, among other things.
In this court, it’s not what you know or what you’ve been told, it’s what you can prove. Can you prove without a reasonable doubt that these tactics was used during Standard’s business dealings?
Rockefeller “was accused of crushing out competition, getting rich on rebates from railroads, bribing men to spy on competing companies, of making secret agreements, of coercing rivals to join the Standard Oil Company under threat of being forced out of business, building up enormous fortunes on the ruins of other men, and so on,” the New York Timessummarized in 1937.
Though the trial resulted in the fractioning of Standard Oil into 34 companies, the government permitted the original stockholders, including Rockefeller, to keep their ownership stakes while putatively acting as competitors. Thus, the monopoly effectively continued for at least another decade afterward, though it arguably lives on in the exertion of power by companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP — just a few of those resulting from the official destruction of the Standard Oil empire.
Now, if these companies are descendants of Standard Oil, aren’t motorists continuously buying their products? Is that a crime?
Called “history’s richest man” by Forbes in 2014, at the time of John D. Rockefeller’s death in 1937, “his assets equaled 1.5% of America’s total economic output. To control an equivalent share today would require a net worth of about $340 billion, more than four times that of Bill Gates,” whom the publication listed as the world’s richest man at the time of the article.
Other estimates imagine Rockefeller’s worth closer to $400 billion, and considering his habit of shady business practices, it wouldn’t be difficult to believe some of his fortune remained secreted away from the public spotlight.
What’s “shady business practices”, what is that? What does that mean to you?
All notoriety aside, Rockefeller stands as a testament to self-education, with his only formal training being a ten-week course in accounting — though it remains a matter of conjecture what good could have been accomplished had he focused his craftiness on other pursuits.
What does “good” mean to you in this context? My understanding is my client didn’t want to do “other pursuits” that’s why he became a successful oilman. In other words; he did wat he thought was good pursuits based on his opinion of “good”. My question is; if you had the power to make him focus on “other pursuits” what would that be?
In 2015, the approximately 200 descendants comprising the Rockefeller family were conservatively estimated to have a combined net worth of $11 billion — placing the dynasty well below the top of the list of America’s richest, at #22.
Grandson David Rockefeller was, in 1954, among the founding members of the Bilderberg Group — whose highly secretive annual meetings have long been fodder for theories that ultra-elite families seek to gain or maintain control of world governments.
Couldn’t it be because Bilderberg Group is what they call a “mastermind” group?
What’s the difference between that meeting, and a family meeting you hold and require secrecy among you and your family members?
Do you think that your decisions everyday regarding your transactions is just as important and affect the world as this “Bilderburg Group?”
Do you believe that every decision you make as a collective affect the world affairs one way or another?
3. Morgan
A panic inundated the U.S. in 1893, partly resulting from fear about the flow of the country’s surplus gold to foreign nations — but John Pierpont Morgan seized the opportunity to ‘save’ the economy and restore confidence in the dollar. Morgan had followed in his father’s footsteps in the banking industry, and formed J.P. Morgan & Company in 1895 — which, in effect, rescued the gold standard.
When you say “fear”, it make people do certain things–especially when it comes to their finances is that correct?
How did my client JP Morgan save the economy?
Were people forced to have fear during this time?
It seem as though Mr. Morgan benefited from this “fear” that was going on, would you agree?
In an agreement with then-President Grover Cleveland, Morgan “led a syndicate of bankers” — which, incidentally, included Rothschild — “to sell U.S. bonds to buy back gold from foreign investors. The firm offered the bonds for sale at $112.25 and sold out the entire issue in New York within 22 minutes,”according to J.P.Morgan.com.
So there was a mutual agreement between President Grover Cleveland and Mr. Morgan regarding a transaction of U.S. bonds and gold?
Go on…
With that gold and bond exchange, Morgan controlled the U.S.’ gold supply — allowing him the flexibility to then finance the creation of U.S. Steel, after an offer to buyout Andrew Carnegie for a price in excess of the U.S. government’s entire budget. After threatening Westinghouse — which had employed Nikola Tesla’s electricity using alternating current — with a patent infringement lawsuit, Morgan gained control of the emerging electric light industry and formed General Electric.
Are you saying that General Electric was NOT founded by Thomas Edison like the history books alledged? Are you telling the court that it was JP Morgan himself that founded General Electric?
Morgan’s unethical, cutthroat business practices — the creation of monopolies by eliminating competition, maximizing profits by slashing jobs and reducing wages, and lack of workplace safety — became known as ‘morganization.’ In fact, figures like Morgan became known as ‘robber barons’ for such tactics — their uninhibited greed fueled a severe stratification of wealth and became a popular target for muckraking journalists.
You’re accusing my client of “unethical” business practices. And then you mentioned “greed”.
What’s greed to you in your own independent definition?
And what’s your feelings towards “wealth”?
And his attempts to profit while exerting influence didn’t stop there. In an investigation afterward, it was revealed America had entered World War I, not for political and policy concerns, but for the profits of the banking and munitions industries.
Now what was your answer before when I asked you about war and the military? Was it my client’s fault that those who went to war joined the military based on their own free will to join? If every soldier (back then and now) all decided not to fight another battle again, would there even be a war?
Senator Gerald P. Nye, who headed the eponymous Nye Committee, vowed at the outset, “when the Senate investigation is over, we shall see that war and preparation for war is not a matter of national honor and national defense, but a matter of profit for the few.”
If this is true, then why do most Americans thank a soldier or a veteran that fight in a war? Shouldn’t a shareholder of a defense company honor them instead?
If war is all about profit, then do soldiers really fight for anyone’s “freedom?”
As it turned out, U.S. banks, including Morgan’s, lent over 100 times as much money to allied countries than it had to adversaries — and in order to protect those loans, the financiers urged the Wilson Administration to come to the aid of their allies by joining the war. Dubbed the “merchants of death,” arms manufacturers were again rumored to ally with the Morgans in the buildup to the second world war.
Who were the adversaries? And why were they “adversaries?”
And who told you they were adversaries?
Recent rumors have suggested a far comfortable relationship than the public would prefer, between what is now JP Morgan Chase and the Federal Reserve. Despite the U.S. abandoning the gold standard, the New York Fed still houses the country’s precious metals in a fifth sub-basement — across the street from JPM’s own fifth sub-basement-situated gold vault. As Business Insidernoted about the ZeroHedgereport, which brought the seeming less-than-coincidental locales back into the spotlight in 2013, the public at large will likely never know if a tunnel exists connecting the two gold vaults.
Unless you’re a shareholder yes? Than wouldn’t that encourage you to become one?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. It seems to me as though this plaintiff is only presenting heresy, which means none of us was there to see these events happening first hand.
Another thing that strikes me is the way all of my clients are described in this article. It looks to me more like an instruction manual to see how you can buy your own country, and politicians are ready to be sold. Just by becoming a calculated and sophisticated business person.
The plaintiff mentions my clients being part of what they call the “Illuminati”. Now according to the Latin word illuminatus, it means “enlightened” or “bearer of light” of knowing thyself despite what indoctrination is enforced by the state and religious institutions.
And, isn’t enemies based on preconceptions of someone else feelings or emotions towards what’s being called an enemy?
The only enemy that exist is the one that refuse to challenge those who want you to think or believe or feel a certain way. Presenting an alternative approach or argument against the popular beliefs of the masses would make YOU an enemy of the state of minds who believe everything that was spoon-fed to them from a regurgitated recycled accusation.
The plaintiff want you to believe that my clients committed crimes of providing a product that the masses wanted. The masses is what bought the oil, the prescriptions, the loans, the coin collections–the masses are the ones who agreed that my clients had the products they wanted. Is that a crime?
So my clients wanted more power. So they wanted control over their business operations. They gave the politicians what they wanted–money. The politicians took the money, and then made laws with it. Is that a crime?
My clients could never be in the position they are without the cooperation of the free market, and the politicians they voted for in office. In other words, my clients depended on a cooperative voluntary action of the buyers for their products, and they were able to capitalize on what the people wanted. Is that a crime?
However, if anyone truly have a problem with the business involvements of my clients, I recommend not doing business with them. Never mind anyone else, it starts with you. It’s none of your concern if people continue to do business with them, that’s what this whole case is about ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
But let’s say the plaintiff is correct about my clients’ business practices. Maybe it’s a good idea to be another Rothschild, Rockefeller or a Morgan.
Other than that, what is the whole point of the plaintiff? So they wanted to show you the ills of my clients and how they built their wealth. Now you know that at least they were businessmen. Now what? What do you do with that? Point out all the misery of the world’s affairs and blame it on the “elite families”? If that make them feel good then by all means…
But what do you do about this? “Informing” people about it does what? What does it do for you? Honestly, we should ask ourselves that question. Can you end the Illuminati tonight? If that’s the case, are you trying to end “knowing thyself”?
If “bearer of light” is what an Illuminati is, then based on YOUR personal beliefs, is that your version of evil?
Regardless of what I said here, you are the Honorable judge here to decide who’s guilty.
Defendant: Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Morgan were only strategic businessmen and paying politicians to determine the policies of governments all over the world.
Plaintiff: Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Morgan are accused of “manipulating” world affairs through ruthless business tactics and bribing.
Okay enough playing “their lawyer”, I really wanted to show the other side of the coin as if someone was speaking on their behalf. I have no opinion regarding these families for I’ve never met them in person. The last thing I allow myself to do is to have an emotion towards a person or place based on someone else story. Regardless of who it is though, every human being in this planet deserve to have their side of the story told–or at least defended 😉
thediary461 