Searching on the foundations of the NYSE, I tripped over the fact that it had been sold in 2012 to ICE. What is ICE? It is a company started by Jeffrey Sprecher.
ICE was backed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley at its startup in 2000, and we are told by mainstream sources that Sprecher “gave” 80% control to them. I assume the correct verb is “took”. They took it.
We aren't told if they still had 80% control in 2012, when ICE took over the NYSE. But I take this to mean that Goldman Sachs (and perhaps Morgan Stanley) now own the NYSE. Morgan Stanley faded in 2007-8, as everyone knows, so maybe they aren't part of the mix like they were.
Or—since that whole collapse was faked and managed as well—maybe Morgan Stanley just went undercover. Whatever the case may be there, we have to ask who owns Goldman Sachs. Are you ready? Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street. Together, they own almost 20% of Goldman Sachs.
And who owns Blackrock? As usual, that information is denied us. We are told that Blackrock is owned by shareholders, and that Fink, the top shareholder, only owns about 1%. If you believe that, you need serious help.
These investment groups were created to hide ownership, and they do it very well. Any research puts you on a merry-go-round, where one investment group is owned by another investment group, and then back to the first one.
As with the Forbes' lists, the richest people are permanently hidden: they don't make any published lists. We may assume the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the usual suspects are being hidden, and maybe some others we don't even know about (like Stanleys or Spencer-Churchills)
But I did find some information that is not hidden which is very interesting. At Fintel (dot) io, we get a breakdown of what Blackrock and some of the others actually own. Chew on this to start with:
As you see, almost overnight Blackrock's value rose about 23 times, from about 80 billion to about 1.8 trillion. What happened in January of 2017? Oh yeah, Trump was sworn in as our newest fake President.
But since Obama had been President before that, and since he was already Goldman Sachs lawnboy, what does that make Trump? Trump is 23 times further up Goldman Sachs wazoo than Obama was? How is that possible?
I leave that to you to figure out, since I have more numbers to spring on you. On that same page, we learn that Blackrock's top holdings are—in this order—:
Blackrock owns 53 billion of Apple, 45 billion of Microsoft, 40 billion of Google, 36 billion of Amazon, 24 billion of Facebook, 25 billion of JPMorganChase, 23 billion of Johnson&Johnson, 20 billion each of ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, and Bank of America, and so on.
Now you know why Apple and Microsoft have never really competed with one another. They are owned by the same people, so competition would be illogical. Two platforms were promoted from the beginning, to give the illusion of competition.
Blackstone's current portfolio is much smaller, about 20 billion, down from 36 billion in 2015. They appear to be shifting assets to Blackrock, closing many positions. But they are still heavily invested in Cheniere, Gates, Hilton, and La Quinta.
What about Vanguard? Curiously, Vanguard's page is almost identical to Blackrock's page. They have about 4100 holdings with a total value of 2.3 trillion, with the top holdings being—in this order—:
Look familiar? The same holdings as Blackrock in the same order.
Vanguard owns 59 billion of Apple, 54 billion of Microsoft, 45 billion of Google, 41 billion of Amazon, 28 billion each of JPMorganChase and Facebook, 27 billion of Johnson&Johnson, 25 billion of BerkshireHathaway, 24 billion if ExxonMobil, etc.
This indicates to me that Vanguard and Blackrock are owned and run by the same family/families, and are actually connected. As with Blackstone/Blackrock, we are sold a split to make it look like the companies aren't related, when they are.
This immediately raises the percent ownership by a large margin (about doubling it in most cases). For instance, Blackrock/Vanguard own 112 billion of Apple. Since we may assume Apple's valuation of 500 billion is vastly inflated, Blackrock/Vanguard may own most of it.
Or, other investment groups like State Street may also be fronts for the same family, being part of the same consortium. That would be my guess.
To see how that works, notice that on the page for GoldmanSachs at Yahoo, we are told BerkshireHathaway is a top institutional holder, owning almost 3 billion of the company.
But we just saw that BerkshireHathaway is itself owned by Blackrock/Vanguard, so part of Blackrock/Vanguard's ownership of GoldmanSachs is hidden in the BerkshireHathaway line.
Three lines lower, we see Bank of America owning 1.4 billion of GoldmanSachs. But since Bank of America is owned by Blackrock/Vanguard, we have the same thing again. You see how the same few families are hiding behind a maze of shunts and fronts.
Whoever owns Blackrock/Vanguard also owns the NYSE and everything else. And what that means is that whenever you see that common statistic trotted out by “progressives” or “liberals”, where 1% of the people on Earth have 50% of wealth, you know you are again being conned.
That statistic sounds bad, but even it is heavily spun. The truth is much much worse. The truth is that the top 100 families, which comprise only a few thousand people, own above 90% of everything, and they control the rest. That means that .0001% own above 90%.
Which is around 20,000 times worse than the statistic the “liberal” press is trying to sell you. And you know why they are trying to sell it to you: the liberal [read fascist] press is also owned by the people that own Blackrock/Vanguard.
Surprisingly, the WSJ comes within inches of the full truth, providing plenty of evidence that BlackRock and other institutional investors are, in fact, ruining the housing market. wsj.com/articles/prope…
The article must have ticked off somebody at Langley – er, I mean, The Atlantic – which is why they stuck their senior stooge Derek Thompson on it. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The piece is a rebuttal of the Wall Street Journal article about how giant investment banks are gobbling up single-family homes and turning them into high-yield rentals, effectively pricing families out of the housing market. wsj.com/articles/prope…
What’s going on? You should know by now that this is all part of their game.
They’re always moving the boundary stones and flipping you from one side to another, merely to create as much noise as possible.
The more cognitive dissonance they can create, the more information they can bombard you with, the faster they will wear you out.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s truth or lies they’re blasting at you anymore; the key to their strategy is merely to make sure that their blasters are on full force and coming at you constantly from every angle.
The film "Let Him Be" is a pretend hunt for a living John Lennon.
Released in 2009, with clips still up on youtube as of 2014. It is chock full of big red flags. The first red flag is the title, which is a prominent part of the psychological operation.
The message is there in the title: let him be! “He isn't still alive; but even if he is, let him be!” In the film, they tell you they have found a guy who looks exactly like Lennon would look at this age.
In interviews for the film, they tell you they have found a Lennon impersonator who looks exactly like Lennon would look at this age, to play the part in the film. The actor named Mark Staycer is playing a character named Noel Snow who other characters think may be John Lennon.