‘Goldman Sachs rules the world’ – Really?

Conspiracy examiners (CE’s) such as myself, will not have failed to have seen Alessio Rastani appearance on the BBC recently.

Unlike some CE’s, I’m not going throw crap at him and make sneering smears against him, or pepper you with ‘warnings’ about him, that you should expect disappointment, from him or watch this space for reports ‘exposing’ him etc., pretty much all of which happened to Tony Farrell.  If you missed it, you can get the low-down on Tony in  this interview. One of Tony’s sins was that he didn’t appear on an approved list of alternative media, and dared opine that the state was involved with 7/7 hence was subject to a very ugly attack.

But prudent questions about the BBC’s role in the celebrated Alessio Rastani interview should be asked.

–

Where did they get this guy from? I think it’s a reasonable question, especially when Al Jazeera English (AJE) says of him:

“While Alessio Rastani has never worked for a major firm in the City of London – and actually lives in a small house owned by his girlfriend” – source

Which BBC researcher sourced him?

Didn’t they pre-interview him to assess his ‘suitability’ for the topic at hand?

Did they have any idea of what he was going to say?

–

Anyway, the main purpose of my post is to say Rastani isn’t really that correct. It’s not Goldman Sachs (G.S.) that rules the world, it’s the people who rule Goldman Sachs that rule the world. A trivial point you may think, if so, I disagree with you. I actually think it’s very relevant. Why is an inanimate, faceless organisation that in itself rules nothing becoming the target of enmity, while the people cowering behind it’s name-plate get off scot-free? Why not look at the high level people involved with G.S. and ponder their political agenda and how that may work it’s way through G.S. – how that ends up affecting your life? Does it only touch you in a purely financial sense?

We are encouraged to think that the Goldmans of this world are just greedy, and this BBC ‘revelation’, plays along with that ever so nicely. Consequently, we are diverted into thinking ‘no world view imposes itself upon and through the macinations of corporations‘. Corporations are apolitical.

Yeah, utter nonsense.

Thankfully the AJE article touches on Goldman’s public-face owners/CEO’s, but only as much as a toe poke in an icy sea, and yip, you guessed it, AJE mention the big people behind G.S. in context of ‘greed for greeds sake’ only.

None of this is Rastani’s fault, I just think there’s a good chance someone in the BBC cunningly selected for this task. That’s a bit conspiratorial, but even if this BBC ‘researcher’ didn’t do it consciously, the filtration system that resulted in this researchers mind being employed by the BBC automatically sets up views like Rastani (although Rastani is an ‘expeme’ case) whereby the real culptits and their goals do NOT get a mention on the corporate media.

What’s resulted from all this is CE’s are cheering the ‘hit’ of G.S. and I think there being subtly hoodwinked.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

Why Haqqani

About a week ago I came across  this article on ICH.

Extract:

America’s “worst enemy”

The Latest Orchestrated Threat and The End of History

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 27, 2011 “Information Clearing House” — Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.

–

PCR seems to have been right. There’s Haqqani here, Haqqani ther, here a Haqqani, there a Haqqani, everywhere a Haqqani.

Perhaps their Al-CIAda organisation reached its sell-by date. The terror lost it’s fear factor.

The imminent attacks couldn’t muster the necessary terror quotient, despite the CIA/FBI busting their own group on occasion. But I’m wondering could there be a new reason for this new ‘terror’ group? 9-11 defines OBL, and the USUKs coalition of the killing has managed to pin the Taiban to 9-11 too, in certain quarters they pinned Irad and Saddam to 9-11 also. So what’s gonna end up defining Haqqani? Is it going to be “Look! we were soft on terror [we only bombed about 10 countries and killed almost 2 million – not that we care – we don’t do body counts] this is what happens when we are soft on terror”Is the breadcrum trail going to lead to Somalia/Iran/Yemen/Syria?

–

One begins to wonder what the next terror group will be called. Chances are it’ll sound foreign with the ‘throaty’ sounds that so terrify English speakers.

One wonders how many sleeper cells Haqqani has. What false flag it’ll be blamed for. What Muslim charity group will be closed down and have it’s accounts frozen. What happens to those frozen accounts anyway?

No doubt these Q’s will be answered in the fullness of time.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–