I was going about my business today of spreading Christmas cheer, when I heard over the car radio that there was a report in The Wall Street Journal that Citigroup had been attacked by "Russian" hackers, who got away with millions of dollars - maybe billions (who knows?). An industrialist named "Blanchard" had been hit more than once. According to him, the first fraudulent transaction remonved $800,000 from his account. The Wall Street Journal account seemed to imply that the FBI was working on the case. Apparently, a bank in Lithuania was involved.
According to the radio report, spokespersons for Citigroup denied any FBI involvement in the matter. They state that all accounts were now with accurate balances. "Tempest in a teapot" seemed to be the Citigroup "take" on the matter.
The radio report then was followed with some breathless talk about cyber-crime and its portent for us all. One reporter was dumbfounded that a "Russian" gang could have done such technical work. There were implied images of large, ruddy-faced Slavs with fists like Polish hogs sitting before computer monitors working "cyber-magic." Somehow, the image and the deed didn't fit.
Permit me to venture the guess that the "Russian" gang behind this "virtual bank break-in" were allied with the "Russian" mafia. The latter were, in fact, mostly Jews. Wherever the "Russian" mafia showed up in the past in America, whether New York City, Southern California or Las Vegas, they proved to be Jewish, or mostly Jewish. Virtually all the "Russian moguls," who ripped off the U.S.S.R. as it died (not entirely unlike grave-robbers) and before a strong, coherent Republican government could be formed to preserve the nation's wealth for the people generally, were Jews.
Of the latter many also had dual citizenship, as they were citizens of the Israeli state, as well as citizens of the Russian one. Much wealth, according to some reports, was stashed in Israeli banks.
I bring up the moguls because I believe that they have more than a little in common with the "Russian" mafia. If I'm correct, then it followed that the "Russian" mafia had established bank accounts in the Israeli banks too.
From reports that have appeared in major newspapers from time to time, I can say that the "Russian" mafia in New York City had specialized in fraudulent credit card crimes and cyber-scams. It is likely that this gang has by now numerous very skillful internet operators.
One should bear in mind that several of the very largest businesses operating in the internet area are controlled by Jews. Google is one example. Facebook is another. EBay is another. Apple is another. Some have asserted the same of Microsoft. At any rate there are plenty. Parenthetically, some of these gather so much data on individuals that they are unofficial intelligence agencies. It isn't hard to establish that there is a disproportionate number of Jews operating successfully in this field of endeavor. Due to Jewish status as a minority (and persecuted one!), they have been able to achieve noticeably influential positions almost anywhere they choose to focus and do so without concerning themselves with matters such as "disparity."
Why could not "Russian" mafia, as with Jews generally, be very successful in the vast cyber-world? Those who recall the days of "acquisitions and mergers" may recall how numerous Jewish-operated financial organizations, such as KKR (principals knighted by QE II, as I recall; the British love pirates)), bought "sick" or "lethargic" companies and devoured the assets, cast aside the "bad" parts (usually composed of the bulk of the workers), and "spun off" the two parts as separate entities.
I ask you: Did the "Russian" gang not approach Citigroup in the same spirit?
I believe the Lithuanian bank probably was meant to be the medium for spinning the stolen funds into myriad, complex banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, and the like. Many of these may have been "shell" companies, which had been created and destroyed as if by gods. Certainly, some of the money would be "stashed" eventually in an Israeli bank, where it would be very difficult to identify and regain. Money accummulation is a kind of scorecard. The thrill of cracking Citigroup would be real, but ultimately it is the money that gives evidence that one has arrived. As Elizabeth Taylor learned from one of her husbands - probably Mike Todd, "Money is the best perfume."
Why was Citigroup so set on being dismissive in regard to this cyber-crime and its impact on Citigroup? Why did they deny much of the report printed in The Wall Street Journal?
One possibility is that the "Russian" mafia may have been in a position to blackmail important people associated with Citigroup. After all, these are corrupt times. It is also possible that the institution itself was imperiled somehow by information gathered by the "Russian" mafia. "Playing ball with extortion" might seem the better course to Citigroup, especially if their losses, etc., could be "palmed off" on the American John Q. Public.
There is another possibility: maybe Citigroup was a partner in the crime, planning on forcing insurance to cover losses, which losses would be shared with Citigroup in accounts which it held at Israeli banks with its "Russian" mafia partners.
Lastly, maybe it is the CIA which is the "invisible partner" with the "Russian" mafia. If this is the case, then the "discreet" approach of Citigroup would be understandable. It should be borne in mind that the Israeli Mossad and American CIA act closely. It would be difficult to imagine that the CIA does NOT have a secret bank account in the Israeli state. These funds could be used to pay for operations that Congress or the President need never know.
Remember: When you look into your computer monitor, its looking back at you. The only issue is: Who is the "peeping Tom?"
Yav Yo Tim is a man of kidney in a lily-livered world. As a Sage among shadows, many find his visibility threatening. Deal with it!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
IS AMERICA ACTUALLY "NEW RUSSIA?"
I don't know if I'm the only American who has noticed this generational phenomenon, so my comments may seem unusually stale. Nevertheless, undaunted I dare make comment on the heavy usage of the word "czar," when referencing the new appointment of someone to this agency or that commission. Is this not an odd term to have become a commonplace in American politics?
This issue has been simmering in my mind for some time. Finally, after reading about "Obama's 'Czar' earned millions from legally troubled firms" [The Washington Times, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Frontpage], I felt to make a comment thereon. By the way, the "czar" in this case was the White House Office of Health Reform Director, Ms. Nancy-Ann DeParle. It could have referred to a plethora of men and women over the last thirty years.
The answer - or better yet, answers - is no mystery to anyone who is well-versed in contemporary politics; it is "yes and no." It is odd, based on school-book analyses of American history. It is not at all odd, if one realises that this is a signature term, which identified the incredible rise of Jewish power nearly across the board in America.
Virtually all the immigration of Jews into America during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first thirty years of the twentieth century were Ashkenazi Jews from Poland, The Ukraine, Russia and its other "suburban" nation neighbors. The great bulk of Jews lived in those countries. This territory constituted their " 'hoods."
Of these most came directly from their 'hoods. Some temporarily took up residence in Mexico, Canada, and South America. Regardless of where they came from originally, they brought with them a "love-hate" relationship to the Romanov Tzars of Russia. The absolute power of a Tzar to command policies must have seemed a desirable, magical power by which to change the world. From the point of Jewry the defects of Tzarism resided in the Romanovs and the Slavic people generally. If this power was put in the hands of a visionary people - such as Jews - then mighty changes for good could be the natural result.
As the Tzars were perceived as anti-Jewish, the galling limitations placed upon them engendered hatred and thoughts of revenge. Jews are the historically most revengeful of people. Naturally, they deny such a comment as "a lie" and "anti-Semitic."
Although the Revolution brought about a plethora of Jewish-style committees and commissions, its power had a way of being concentrated into the hands of Comrade-Tzar Lenin. Later, the same thing would occur with Comrade-Tzar Stalin. They then might appoint a "sub-Tzar" to command policies in regard to this or that, such as the White River Canal Project.
In short, the word "Tzar" - or "Czar"- was very influential on the thinking of Jews as an embodiment of the absolute control they sought for themselves. It had totemic power in the minds of Jewry. With such power they could change the entire world. It had magical powers, which traced back centuries in the poor, superstitious enclaves of Jewry which were under the thumb of the Romanov Tzars. The absolute commands of the Tzars were like powers wielded by the "Wizard of Oz" (or any such fabulous person).
But as a satelite emblem of power, the appointment of a non-Jewish "Tzar" by Jews to administer a sub-fiefdoms was itself exceedingly gratifying, as it magnified the power of Jews themselves.
The Jews who migrated to America carried this idea of "absolute command" with them. As the Tzars used fear as a tool to enhance and preserve their autocratic rule, so Jews collectively began to move to punish a few so as to engender fear in many, as they pushed toward the levers of control. These were the Marxist-Zionist Jews, but, unlike the richer Jews of Germany, Holland, France and England, they did not seek financial-corporate control, as a means to favorably change policy. They favored the use of masses to effect change, aided by tactically-sound assassinations.
In America they formed communist and socialist parties and movements. One of the primary aims of Jewry at this time was to halt immigration-control legislation. This was primarily to protect the free-flow of communists and socialists. Both of these movements were heavily influenced by Jews. From V.I. Lenin down to ward leaders, Marxist Jews understood the need to keep the "underground" movement of trained cadres open and flowing. For the dream of global Tzarist power was the "I Have A Dream" of the Jews.
The Jewish sons of Russia (or a suburban nation) energetically labored to bring about "change" in America. Armand Hammer, head of Occidental Petroleum and patron of the Al Gore family, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His father and another Jew founded the Communist Party in America. [Junior Gore's daughter married the grandson of Jacob Schiff] From labor union organization, to education, to newsprint, to movies, these "leftist" Jews found roads which led to premier launchpads for "New Policies." Marxism and Zionism intertwined like double helix, creating a "New Deal," a "Fair Deal," a "New Society," and identifying "New Frontiers." [The JFK Administration probably had as many Jews in top spots of government as FDR.]
One must be amazed by the "sheer brass" of the Jewish people. They came belatedly into the Promised Land, where, rich with the pelf of a hundred civilizations, they, Borg-like, began to consume America.
This process actually caught America in a pincer movement, as the incredibly rich Rothschild condominium, including Warburgs, Speyers, Sassoons, Lehmans, Schiffs, advanced Jewish interests in the area of corporate control. Therefore, Jews were able to create pressure from above and below. This dovetailed perfectly with the caballah-engendered formula: As above, so below.
Parenthetically, the Jewish immigrant, Jacob Schiff, according to his son, gave the Marxist revolutionary, Trotsky, $20 million in gold to take to Lenin and the revolutionaries in Russia. Naturally, among other things, this sort of money could be used to bribe strategically located people. [John D. Rockefeller was alleged to have given Trotsky $10 thousand in cash, which was rather extravagant for John D.] I saw on the History Channel a rendering of Lenin's funeral. To my surprise I saw that Jacob Schiff was one of the lead pall-bearers. I knew his image from other sources. There could be no doubt. However, the History Channel, getting "wind" of this discovery, may "doctor" or "lose" the video. I state all this to make a point well-known to those who have read beyond the Establishment histories on this subject: the incompatibility and animosity of Capitalism & Marxism does not exist at the top.
Toward the end of the 1930s, as I recall, a man (Leese?) made the comment that when Jews leave Russia, Communism will soon thereafter die. The concept was to this effect. Jews have been leaving Russia/U.S.S.R. for many decades. Back in the 1960s, a Time magazine article spoke about American economists (probably Jewish in their most influential levels) theorizing that the economies of America and the U.S.S.R would slowly merge. They spoke of the American economy becoming "communism with a human face."
Ordinary Americans have only a fuzzy notion of Communism to begin with. A very important Zionist in America during the first half of the twentieth century was Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise. He had been born in Poland about 1874. He came to the U.S.A. and became an advocate of Zionism and unofficial adviser to both Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He stated that "Communism is Judaism and Judaism is Communism." [Possibly he used the word "Marxism" rather than "Communism."] I bring this up because many people suppose that "Communism is dead." Is It?
If one looked at the changes effected in America since the turn of the Twentieth Century and the changes that occurred from the last days of Tzar Nicholas II from about the same period in Russia, one might argue successfully that more major changes occurred in America. Our changes were achieved without significant internal loss of blood, although there has been a great deal of it lost abroad, as America fought to procure a homeland for the Jews or fought the enemies of the Jews over such issues. This is not realized, as covering issues were carefully constructed. For example, FDR's luring Japan to attack, so America could get into the European war and "bail out" the U.K. Both Britain and the Jews were interested in engineering this event.
At this point in time every U.S. presidential administration is born, if not by Jewish siring, then at least by Jewish "nannying." All the media supported and will support these "Rahmanov" dynasties (or kindred ones). Over half the money gathered in by the Democrat Party is given by Jews. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," is an illustrative adage which makes the point of power clear to all.
Incidentally, one need not look to the Republican Party, which gets significant funding from Jewry, also, and which is the "home turf" of benighted Christians who see Jewry as the "Apple of God's Eye" and inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant. These confused people will not even criticize Jews when they are clearly in the wrong, as they fear a curse from God. You have to suppose that Jews love this situation.
All of this rambling blog of mine is meant to suggest that there is a direct relationship between the rise of Jews in the American society and the frequent use of the word "Czar" by Presidents, such as Barack Obama, Billy Jeff Clinton, the Bushes, et al, and other politicians, as well as the media. I am further suggesting that the concept of "Czar" is not consistent with American traditions. Little wonder, then, that we have strayed so far from those sound traditions. Little wonder that our essential sovereignty has been cast aside for the dream of a global community. Today's Americans breathlessly wonder at who will be our first global "Czar." I can't say but make the reasonable postulation that s/he will have several very close Jewish "advisers."
This issue has been simmering in my mind for some time. Finally, after reading about "Obama's 'Czar' earned millions from legally troubled firms" [The Washington Times, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Frontpage], I felt to make a comment thereon. By the way, the "czar" in this case was the White House Office of Health Reform Director, Ms. Nancy-Ann DeParle. It could have referred to a plethora of men and women over the last thirty years.
The answer - or better yet, answers - is no mystery to anyone who is well-versed in contemporary politics; it is "yes and no." It is odd, based on school-book analyses of American history. It is not at all odd, if one realises that this is a signature term, which identified the incredible rise of Jewish power nearly across the board in America.
Virtually all the immigration of Jews into America during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first thirty years of the twentieth century were Ashkenazi Jews from Poland, The Ukraine, Russia and its other "suburban" nation neighbors. The great bulk of Jews lived in those countries. This territory constituted their " 'hoods."
Of these most came directly from their 'hoods. Some temporarily took up residence in Mexico, Canada, and South America. Regardless of where they came from originally, they brought with them a "love-hate" relationship to the Romanov Tzars of Russia. The absolute power of a Tzar to command policies must have seemed a desirable, magical power by which to change the world. From the point of Jewry the defects of Tzarism resided in the Romanovs and the Slavic people generally. If this power was put in the hands of a visionary people - such as Jews - then mighty changes for good could be the natural result.
As the Tzars were perceived as anti-Jewish, the galling limitations placed upon them engendered hatred and thoughts of revenge. Jews are the historically most revengeful of people. Naturally, they deny such a comment as "a lie" and "anti-Semitic."
Although the Revolution brought about a plethora of Jewish-style committees and commissions, its power had a way of being concentrated into the hands of Comrade-Tzar Lenin. Later, the same thing would occur with Comrade-Tzar Stalin. They then might appoint a "sub-Tzar" to command policies in regard to this or that, such as the White River Canal Project.
In short, the word "Tzar" - or "Czar"- was very influential on the thinking of Jews as an embodiment of the absolute control they sought for themselves. It had totemic power in the minds of Jewry. With such power they could change the entire world. It had magical powers, which traced back centuries in the poor, superstitious enclaves of Jewry which were under the thumb of the Romanov Tzars. The absolute commands of the Tzars were like powers wielded by the "Wizard of Oz" (or any such fabulous person).
But as a satelite emblem of power, the appointment of a non-Jewish "Tzar" by Jews to administer a sub-fiefdoms was itself exceedingly gratifying, as it magnified the power of Jews themselves.
The Jews who migrated to America carried this idea of "absolute command" with them. As the Tzars used fear as a tool to enhance and preserve their autocratic rule, so Jews collectively began to move to punish a few so as to engender fear in many, as they pushed toward the levers of control. These were the Marxist-Zionist Jews, but, unlike the richer Jews of Germany, Holland, France and England, they did not seek financial-corporate control, as a means to favorably change policy. They favored the use of masses to effect change, aided by tactically-sound assassinations.
In America they formed communist and socialist parties and movements. One of the primary aims of Jewry at this time was to halt immigration-control legislation. This was primarily to protect the free-flow of communists and socialists. Both of these movements were heavily influenced by Jews. From V.I. Lenin down to ward leaders, Marxist Jews understood the need to keep the "underground" movement of trained cadres open and flowing. For the dream of global Tzarist power was the "I Have A Dream" of the Jews.
The Jewish sons of Russia (or a suburban nation) energetically labored to bring about "change" in America. Armand Hammer, head of Occidental Petroleum and patron of the Al Gore family, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His father and another Jew founded the Communist Party in America. [Junior Gore's daughter married the grandson of Jacob Schiff] From labor union organization, to education, to newsprint, to movies, these "leftist" Jews found roads which led to premier launchpads for "New Policies." Marxism and Zionism intertwined like double helix, creating a "New Deal," a "Fair Deal," a "New Society," and identifying "New Frontiers." [The JFK Administration probably had as many Jews in top spots of government as FDR.]
One must be amazed by the "sheer brass" of the Jewish people. They came belatedly into the Promised Land, where, rich with the pelf of a hundred civilizations, they, Borg-like, began to consume America.
This process actually caught America in a pincer movement, as the incredibly rich Rothschild condominium, including Warburgs, Speyers, Sassoons, Lehmans, Schiffs, advanced Jewish interests in the area of corporate control. Therefore, Jews were able to create pressure from above and below. This dovetailed perfectly with the caballah-engendered formula: As above, so below.
Parenthetically, the Jewish immigrant, Jacob Schiff, according to his son, gave the Marxist revolutionary, Trotsky, $20 million in gold to take to Lenin and the revolutionaries in Russia. Naturally, among other things, this sort of money could be used to bribe strategically located people. [John D. Rockefeller was alleged to have given Trotsky $10 thousand in cash, which was rather extravagant for John D.] I saw on the History Channel a rendering of Lenin's funeral. To my surprise I saw that Jacob Schiff was one of the lead pall-bearers. I knew his image from other sources. There could be no doubt. However, the History Channel, getting "wind" of this discovery, may "doctor" or "lose" the video. I state all this to make a point well-known to those who have read beyond the Establishment histories on this subject: the incompatibility and animosity of Capitalism & Marxism does not exist at the top.
Toward the end of the 1930s, as I recall, a man (Leese?) made the comment that when Jews leave Russia, Communism will soon thereafter die. The concept was to this effect. Jews have been leaving Russia/U.S.S.R. for many decades. Back in the 1960s, a Time magazine article spoke about American economists (probably Jewish in their most influential levels) theorizing that the economies of America and the U.S.S.R would slowly merge. They spoke of the American economy becoming "communism with a human face."
Ordinary Americans have only a fuzzy notion of Communism to begin with. A very important Zionist in America during the first half of the twentieth century was Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise. He had been born in Poland about 1874. He came to the U.S.A. and became an advocate of Zionism and unofficial adviser to both Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He stated that "Communism is Judaism and Judaism is Communism." [Possibly he used the word "Marxism" rather than "Communism."] I bring this up because many people suppose that "Communism is dead." Is It?
If one looked at the changes effected in America since the turn of the Twentieth Century and the changes that occurred from the last days of Tzar Nicholas II from about the same period in Russia, one might argue successfully that more major changes occurred in America. Our changes were achieved without significant internal loss of blood, although there has been a great deal of it lost abroad, as America fought to procure a homeland for the Jews or fought the enemies of the Jews over such issues. This is not realized, as covering issues were carefully constructed. For example, FDR's luring Japan to attack, so America could get into the European war and "bail out" the U.K. Both Britain and the Jews were interested in engineering this event.
At this point in time every U.S. presidential administration is born, if not by Jewish siring, then at least by Jewish "nannying." All the media supported and will support these "Rahmanov" dynasties (or kindred ones). Over half the money gathered in by the Democrat Party is given by Jews. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," is an illustrative adage which makes the point of power clear to all.
Incidentally, one need not look to the Republican Party, which gets significant funding from Jewry, also, and which is the "home turf" of benighted Christians who see Jewry as the "Apple of God's Eye" and inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant. These confused people will not even criticize Jews when they are clearly in the wrong, as they fear a curse from God. You have to suppose that Jews love this situation.
All of this rambling blog of mine is meant to suggest that there is a direct relationship between the rise of Jews in the American society and the frequent use of the word "Czar" by Presidents, such as Barack Obama, Billy Jeff Clinton, the Bushes, et al, and other politicians, as well as the media. I am further suggesting that the concept of "Czar" is not consistent with American traditions. Little wonder, then, that we have strayed so far from those sound traditions. Little wonder that our essential sovereignty has been cast aside for the dream of a global community. Today's Americans breathlessly wonder at who will be our first global "Czar." I can't say but make the reasonable postulation that s/he will have several very close Jewish "advisers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)