Jon, I enjoyed listening to your two podcasts. This "system" you described is really just the last 100+ years of evolution of it. The Khazarian Mafia control system goes back hundreds of years.
I just finished listening to both podcasts, and for the second one, I'd like to point out that it's even easier than you say. So, I'll be concrete. Let's say I have $100k in savings, could be retirement savings, doesn't matter. And I want to invest it in such a way as to take advantage of growth amongst large-capitalization companies listed on the major exchanges. And I'm going to do that in a way that insulates me from individual corporate risk. So I'm going to buy a fund that invests in potentially hundreds of these underlying stocks. It could be an ETF, but really, any kind of fund will do. As a shareholder in that fund, let's call it "VV", which is the name of the big Vanguard fund that does exactly what I described above, I am indirectly invested in shares in the underlying stocks. That's why Vanguard will mail me a prospectus when there is some change in fund composition, for example. Along the way, I have probably signed off on Vanguard's agreement that unless I do something to vote my shares in the underlying stocks, they are allowed to vote those shares as my proxy. Most people, myself included, couldn't care less how those shares are voted. We are only there to reap the capital gains. Talk about "leaving money on the table." What we have here is millions and millions of votes left on the table. And you know the rest of the story. I think this is a more likely scenario than the one you painted in part two, where the BlackRock or Vanguard or State Street player has to actually purchase huge blocks of shares. They do do that, but they go to lengths to hide what they're doing, because large, visible moves like that are signals to savvy investors as to which way the market in a given stock or sector will move. Hence, why do that when it's not required. Bottom line, my shares are getting voted every year, and I have no idea how or what they are used for. You might say, "well then every fund shareholder needs to step up and vote the underlying shares responsibly." What would be the chances of that. Thanks for reading.
A good, reader-engaging, and provocative article (as is most often the case at "The Anti-New York Times") on how corporations and businesses are economically strong-armed into promoting pernicious ideologies and causes like LGBT..., BLM, and Green/Climate ideology can be seen at
BLM and the Big Boys: Vanguard, State Street, and Black Rock can influence public companies with stockholders. But they have NO influence on privately held companies like Cargill and Mars.
With a nod to Mr. Mathews' note (above), it would be cool if you recorded a program with Catherine Fitts to clarify the actual "ownership"/ influence of the oft-mentioned asset managers (Blackrock, etc). For instance, much is made in the alt universe that Vanguard, etc "own" x% of Behemoth Corp, and that Vanguard + State Street own xx%, etc. and therefore represent the Heart of the Demon, but this of course ignores the basic distinction that this "ownership" represents shares held in "street name" *on behalf of* individual investors in their (and others') mutual funds. This is not to ignore that places like Blackrock buy and sell securities (and influence) with their own money, but the scale is different.
Similarly, as Mathews notes, the voting power of the shares held by companies as fiduciaries is distinct from the votes they exercise with their own shares. I am foggy on the details, but I believe laws prescribe how fund managers have to vote shares, and I believe the default is to accept Behemoth Mangement's recommendations. I don't believe funds can use their votes to engage in "shareholder activism" (e.g., change management). These would be good questions for Catherine.
I don't disagree, BTW, with other comments you've made about the incestuous relationships between board members of money companies and hospital companies, for instance, and the paradigmatic hegemony they produce. But this is a different channel of influence than gross stockholdings.
Like I say, it'd be cool to record something definitive about the function of the big finance names for the commentariat; I'm tired of hearing about how "Fox sued itself" because State Street holds x.y% of Dominion. And I still don't know what the WEF thinks it's doing with ESG scores.
[Can I see some likes for this to bring it to Jon's attention ?]
You’re right about the solution. It’s a David and Goliath situation. David has all the cards: imagination, joy, play, dance and revelry. Goliath is an empty headed, monster running on logic. He thinks too much. He’s basically lifeless.
Another angle. Black rock built his mansion on a sandy foundation. An ocean wave will wash it away. Our house is built on a solid foundation of consciousness. It’s depths go on forever. It cannot be shaken.
This attempted takeover of the world is the last playing card of the patriarchy. It’s been playing with a half deck since the beginning, having excluded women from the game. When they have to lay down their cards, they will be surprised to see them blank, empty. they’ve always been that way, they were just too blind to see.
I will check out the links you provided.
The same trans-national groups that are behind all of the chaos...
big tech, big banking, MIC, CIA, big medicine and pharma, and sadists/dictators.
Jon, I enjoyed listening to your two podcasts. This "system" you described is really just the last 100+ years of evolution of it. The Khazarian Mafia control system goes back hundreds of years.
Jon,
I just finished listening to both podcasts, and for the second one, I'd like to point out that it's even easier than you say. So, I'll be concrete. Let's say I have $100k in savings, could be retirement savings, doesn't matter. And I want to invest it in such a way as to take advantage of growth amongst large-capitalization companies listed on the major exchanges. And I'm going to do that in a way that insulates me from individual corporate risk. So I'm going to buy a fund that invests in potentially hundreds of these underlying stocks. It could be an ETF, but really, any kind of fund will do. As a shareholder in that fund, let's call it "VV", which is the name of the big Vanguard fund that does exactly what I described above, I am indirectly invested in shares in the underlying stocks. That's why Vanguard will mail me a prospectus when there is some change in fund composition, for example. Along the way, I have probably signed off on Vanguard's agreement that unless I do something to vote my shares in the underlying stocks, they are allowed to vote those shares as my proxy. Most people, myself included, couldn't care less how those shares are voted. We are only there to reap the capital gains. Talk about "leaving money on the table." What we have here is millions and millions of votes left on the table. And you know the rest of the story. I think this is a more likely scenario than the one you painted in part two, where the BlackRock or Vanguard or State Street player has to actually purchase huge blocks of shares. They do do that, but they go to lengths to hide what they're doing, because large, visible moves like that are signals to savvy investors as to which way the market in a given stock or sector will move. Hence, why do that when it's not required. Bottom line, my shares are getting voted every year, and I have no idea how or what they are used for. You might say, "well then every fund shareholder needs to step up and vote the underlying shares responsibly." What would be the chances of that. Thanks for reading.
A good, reader-engaging, and provocative article (as is most often the case at "The Anti-New York Times") on how corporations and businesses are economically strong-armed into promoting pernicious ideologies and causes like LGBT..., BLM, and Green/Climate ideology can be seen at
https://www.realhistorychan.com/anyt-03162023.html
BLM and the Big Boys: Vanguard, State Street, and Black Rock can influence public companies with stockholders. But they have NO influence on privately held companies like Cargill and Mars.
Hey Jon -
With a nod to Mr. Mathews' note (above), it would be cool if you recorded a program with Catherine Fitts to clarify the actual "ownership"/ influence of the oft-mentioned asset managers (Blackrock, etc). For instance, much is made in the alt universe that Vanguard, etc "own" x% of Behemoth Corp, and that Vanguard + State Street own xx%, etc. and therefore represent the Heart of the Demon, but this of course ignores the basic distinction that this "ownership" represents shares held in "street name" *on behalf of* individual investors in their (and others') mutual funds. This is not to ignore that places like Blackrock buy and sell securities (and influence) with their own money, but the scale is different.
Similarly, as Mathews notes, the voting power of the shares held by companies as fiduciaries is distinct from the votes they exercise with their own shares. I am foggy on the details, but I believe laws prescribe how fund managers have to vote shares, and I believe the default is to accept Behemoth Mangement's recommendations. I don't believe funds can use their votes to engage in "shareholder activism" (e.g., change management). These would be good questions for Catherine.
I don't disagree, BTW, with other comments you've made about the incestuous relationships between board members of money companies and hospital companies, for instance, and the paradigmatic hegemony they produce. But this is a different channel of influence than gross stockholdings.
Like I say, it'd be cool to record something definitive about the function of the big finance names for the commentariat; I'm tired of hearing about how "Fox sued itself" because State Street holds x.y% of Dominion. And I still don't know what the WEF thinks it's doing with ESG scores.
[Can I see some likes for this to bring it to Jon's attention ?]
Keep up the good work!
Brilliant & insightful - should be required listening for all!
You’re right about the solution. It’s a David and Goliath situation. David has all the cards: imagination, joy, play, dance and revelry. Goliath is an empty headed, monster running on logic. He thinks too much. He’s basically lifeless.
Another angle. Black rock built his mansion on a sandy foundation. An ocean wave will wash it away. Our house is built on a solid foundation of consciousness. It’s depths go on forever. It cannot be shaken.
This attempted takeover of the world is the last playing card of the patriarchy. It’s been playing with a half deck since the beginning, having excluded women from the game. When they have to lay down their cards, they will be surprised to see them blank, empty. they’ve always been that way, they were just too blind to see.