MORE SIGNS OF FACTIONAL INFIGHTING? THE WALL STREET JOURNAL VS THE ...
Here's a very unusual story from Zero Hedge that appeared the day I am scheduling and writing this past week's blogs (i.e., Friday, Oct 18, 2013). It seems that American's premier financial news organ, The Wall Street Journal, has complied with an injunction in a British court not to publish an article naming the names of the banks, and individuals, connected with manipulating the LIBOR rates:
UK Orders WSJ To Withold Names Of Implicated LIBOR Manipulators After Story Already Hits Wires
I've been suggesting in recent blogs that while we could be looking at staged events, all part of one comprehensively thought-out master plan of the Western financial elites, it is more likely that we're looking at signs or indicators of something else, namely, deep fissures and factional infighting within that oligarchy, and more specifically, between the European wing and the North American one, represented or symbolized by the names of those two famous banking dynasties whose surnames begin with "R", one quintessentially European, and the other, quintessentially "American." It's all fine and dandy to be a "globalist," but globalism's end game melts away under the bright heat of who will emerge at the top of the heap. For years, beginning on my friend George Ann Hughes' The Byte Show, I've been saying that what I'm seeing are more and more signs that the globalist power structure is far from being unified. It is, in fact, fracturing deeply along the fault lines of standard financial and geopolitical interests, as well as along the fault lines of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations.
I doubt that we're simply looking at "sheer statist stupidity" on the part of British courts or interests here. You don't create and hold together a gigantic empire from Elizabeth I to Edward VII by being stupid. Something else might be in play here, and I suggest that perhaps what is really being staved off is where those connections or threads that emanate from the UK might lead. The United Kingdom's actions here thus have about them the feel of an "ongoing operation in progress," which the articles cited in the Zero Hedge piece certainly hint at. One doesn't trumpet an intelligence operation until it is concluded.
Could it be that the authorities in the UK, both inside and outside the City of London, suspect that there may have been even deeper players in the LIBOR manipulation scandals than the major British institutions and companies already implicated? Could this be the ultimate reason behind the gag order on the WSJ in Britain? If so, where might the trail lead?
Well, in the spirit of our high octane speculation, I suggest, in the light of the noise coming out of the IMF, World Bank, and even from whistleblowers such as Ms. Karen Hudes, whom I blogged about yesterday, that some of those trails, if indeed there are any, that lead from LIBOR to "even deeper players" would lead to Switzerland, and the major pillars of western international finance located there....
...such as the BIS. To manipulate the LIBOR rates in the manner suggested by the scandal, implies an institution or institutions with access to vast computational power....
And that implication leads to but a few places.
See you on the flip side.
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
The blog and all the comments are very valid but where do the Zionist’s and their agenda fit into the “clash of civilisation” scenario and how things are panning out right now?
“For years, beginning on my friend George Ann Hughes’ The Byte Show, I’ve been saying that what I’m seeing are more and more signs that the globalist power structure is far from being unified. It is, in fact, fracturing deeply along the fault lines of standard financial and geopolitical interests, as well as along the fault lines of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations.”
I agree as usual. But speaking of Huntington’s model, i can only shake my head at his understanding of ‘Confucianism’, its little too ‘western-centric’ to assume “Confucianism”+”Islam” is the ‘enemy’ of the West.
For starter, today’s China is run by bunch of culturally speaking barbarious ‘commies’ and is turning into something equally barbarious as ‘capitalist’ and ‘consumerist’, real Confucianism on the other hand ‘looked down’ on ‘commercialism’.
And historically speaking, Confucianism was meant to provide a code of moral guidance to the rulers and officials and have in practice facilitated the huge bureaucracy needed to run a vast nation as China. As the country has always been a agrarian society Confucian emphasis has always been on agriculture as well that historical Confucianism held a peasant as more important than a ‘businessman’.
Not to mention, as i have realized not very long ago, thanks to invaluable insights by Dr.Farrell on “the rise of human sacrifice culture” (for that whom i’m forever in debt to), that the historical rise of ‘Confucianism’ in China three thousand years ago played ‘the decisive role” of riding ‘human sacrifice’ practice in ancient China.
“In 1993, Samuel Huntington rocked the foreign-policy community by arguing, in an essay entitled “A
Clash of Civilizations?” that the process of globalization would in fact be greatly slowed or even
interrupted as large-scale cultural units or civilizations began to collide. In this piece of influential
academic analysis, published in the journal Foreign Affairs, Islam and China are pictured as the West’s
most likely emerging enemies, and Huntington asserted that future competition among the world’s
sociopolitical entities would no longer be among nations but rather among such pan-national civilizations
as the Western, Confucian, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and “possibly” the African.
The article’s most provocative assertion is advanced, however, when Huntington speaks of a so-called
Those countries that for reason of culture and power do not wish to, or cannot, join the West,
compete with the West by developing their own economic, military, and political power. They do
this by promoting their internal development and by cooperating with other non-Western
countries. The most prominent form of this cooperation is the Confucian-Islamic connection that
has emerged to challenge Western interests, values, and power. (Huntington, 1993)
Although Huntington does not end his essay on an apocalyptic note, he nonetheless insists that European,
North American, Eastern European, Latin American, and Russian civilizations, along with some special
“Confucian” cases such as Japan and South Korea, must cooperate and must maintain their military
superiority. Indeed, they must go further by exploiting the differences and conflicts among the Confucian
and Islamic states, and by impeding any increase in their military strengths.
It is important to note that in “A Clash of Civilizations?” Huntington is focusing on the international
scene, for over-generalizations about particular nations and/or civilizations are not uncommon. As for his
view of Islam and China as enemies to the West, it was formulated at a time when the world was felt to be
gradually globalizing, with the West leading this “benign” trend. Thus, the clash between the West and
the Islamic/Confucian civilizations was felt by Huntington to be particularly painful, in that it would lead
to the derailment of a trend that was building up such key structural factors as privatized economies,
foreign investment, joint ventures, military alliances, and so on. These “oppositional” civilizations had in
their power, or so it seemed, not only to degrade globalization’s positive and rapid economic, political,
and social impacts on traditional cultures, but also to undermine the burgeoning causes of modernization
and of greater inter-civilizational collaboration in the future. “
I wonder if those 2 bankster dynasty were the source of the R&R railroads on the monopoly game…..good game that explains fiat currency, came out during the recession, aka the dirty 30s.
…., if you put an obelisk in dynasty….what do you get?
Europe formerly had blasphemy laws punishing anyone who dared “take the Lord’s name in vain”. Now it seems to be a crime to take the banksters’ name in vain – but how long can this last?
Or far more simply the UK has a much bigger tradition of restraint of the press than the US. And someone in the UK doesn’t want some powerful banker embarassed.
In the US the ibank would simply pay off the reporter at the WSJ with a consulting job. Frankly the WSJ has a lot of catching up to Rolling Stone to do.
Agree, Isn’t the WSJ owned by the same lunatic that owns Fox.