from Humans Are Free:
A few years ago, readers were introduced to a paradigm of crime, corruption, and control which they now know as “the One Bank”. First they were presented with a definition and description of this crime syndicate.
That definition came via a massive computer modelconstructed by a trio of Swiss academics, and cited with favor by Forbes magazine. The computer model was based upon data involving more than 10 million “economic actors”, both individuals and corporations, and the conclusions which that model produced were nothing less than shocking.
The One Bank is “a super-entity” comprised of 147 corporate fronts, with approximately ¾ of these corporate fronts being financial intermediaries (i.e. “banks”).
According to the Swiss computer model, via these 147 corporate tentacles, the One Bank controls approximately 40% of the global economy. The only thing more appalling than the massive size of this crime syndicate is its massive illegality.
Some of the strongest laws in the Western world were created precisely to prevent such corporate concentration from ever coming into existence, and thus the crime, corruption, and conspiracy which automatically accompanies it. These are our “anti-trust laws”, laws which our puppet governments have long since ceased to enforce. The evidence of this crime/ corruption/ conspiracy is all around us.
On a near weekly basis, the Big Banks of the West are caught-and-convicted (but never punished), perpetrating criminal conspiracies literally thousands of times larger than any other financial crimes in human history. The U.S. government has now publicly proclaimed that its Big Banks have a license to steal.
All of these Big Banks are tentacles of the One Bank, and the list of names here (as identified by the Swiss researchers) is almost as infamous as the mega-crimes which they commit: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, and UBS – for starters. But for many readers, this is now old news.
We observe the crimes of these corporate fronts, every day of our lives. We feel the impact of their crimes (on our standard of living) every day of our lives. However, these “banks” are ultimately merely the inanimate tools of crime. What many readers are now intent upon knowing goes beyond these tools, or even the mega-crimes which they are used to commit.
What people want to know is more basic. Who are the Criminals – the real Criminals?
In this respect, we are not talking about the mere bankers, themselves. From the lowliest market-manipulating thugs to the upper stratosphere of CEO’s and central bankers, these are all merely foot soldiers, the psychopathic employees of the real Criminals.
The information wanted by readers is not the names of these employees. They are all nothing more than easily replaceable parts. The information of real value can be encapsulated in one, simple question: who owns the One Bank?
At first glance, the question appears elementary. The One Bank is a financial crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy – a global economy with annual GDP of roughly $70 trillion. Clearly the owners of the One Bank would have to be “the world’s richest people” (richest men?).
Here the Corporate media is only too happy to be of service to us. Once a year, we are presented with a “world’s richest list”, which is then parroted by all of the other outlets of the Big Media oligopoly, ad nauseum. Thus, we simply peruse this list for the names at the top, and we have our “owners” of the One Bank. Et voila!
Not so fast. As most regular readers are already well aware, the mainstream media oligopoly is nothing but more of the One Bank’s tentacles. Perhaps we should look a little more closely, before we simply pluck the names from the top of the list, and hail them as the One Bank’s owner-criminals?
In fact, such skepticism is well-justified. These supposed “world’s richest” lists, produced by the propaganda arm of the One Bank, are not worth the virtual paper on which they are written. Exposing the absurdity of such lists requires nothing more than accumulating some aggregate financial data, and then pulling out a calculator.
Fortunately, all of that work has already been done in a previous piece. Skipping to the bottom line, if we take the “world’s richest list” data, along with aggregate data on global wealth (all supplied by the Corporate media), we are presented with a world where total global wealth is supposedly a number in the low $10’s of trillions.
Meanwhile, if we look no further than the oceans of paper “wealth” fabricated by the financial sector (and the One Bank crime syndicate), already we approach a quantum somewhere around ½ quadrillion dollars, i.e. $500 trillion, and this completely excludes all real wealth in the world, in the form of hard assets.
The conclusion is obvious: more than 90% of the actual wealth in the world today (real and paper) is hidden from us, in terms of any data made readily available to the general public.
This unimaginable hoard of wealth is certainly not being hidden by the vast majority of people at the bottom of the wealth totem-pole, therefore it can only be hidden at the top.
Equally clear, 90+% of all humanity’s wealth won’t be found by simply closer scrutiny of the supposed “world’s richest” people. If all of their fortunes were more than ten times larger than what is currently being reported, even the mathematically-challenged dolts of the mainstream media would quickly figure out that there was something amiss.
Instead, the only rational answer is that there is another, entire tier of the “world’s richest”, an echelon above all the B-List Billionaires on the official lists. The real “world’s richest” are, in fact, not billionaires at all, but rather trillionaires: the Oligarch Trillionaires who own (among other things) the One Bank.
How wealthy are these Oligarchs?
Not only are these Oligarchs wealthy enough to be able to hide their names (and fortunes) from all public scrutiny, these trillionaires wield enough power to even prevent the word “trillionaire” from being recognized as an official word in our dictionaries. This absurdity was also noted in that prior commentary.