The Mystery of the One Bank: its Owners? - Jeff Nielson

Jeff Nielson wrote recently this expose giving us more insight into the hidden cabal of the world elite. You see, most people believe that the "top 1% control everything", but even though those people are rich by the standards of regular citizens in most countries, they are just pawns of the true elite that control finances, and who want to control every resource, including private property, where new resources are found.

These people want to take control of all land, even if that land belongs to a private citizen. These elites set up a plan about 100 years ago, which is still in motion, and which will give control of the world resources to their families for generations to come.

The Mystery of the One Bank: its Owners? - Jeff Nielson


February 12, 2016

Roughly 2 ½ 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 model constructed 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 144 corporate fronts, with approximately ¾ of these corporate fronts being financial intermediaries (i.e. “banks”). According to the Swiss computer model; via these 144 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.
...

www.sprottmoney.com...

Here is the abstract about the computer model which the Swiss academics constructed.

S. Vitali, J.B. Glattfelder, and S. Battiston:
The network of global corporate control
The network of global corporate control

Stefania Vitali 1, James B. Glattfelder 1, and Stefano Battiston 1*

1 Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Kreuzplatz 5, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland,
*corresponding author, email: sbattiston@ethz.ch

Abstract

The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market com-
petition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was
no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the
architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control
held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie struc-
ture and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.
This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for
researchers and policy makers.
...

arxiv.org...

Jeff Nielson gives us a lot of information about this cabal of true elites. The elites that want to have control over all resources, and even people's lives.

Nielson's article continues stating.

...
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.
...
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” [size]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.

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.

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.
...

www.sprottmoney.com...

(to be continued)

The Bankers' Manifesto of 1892 - Jeff Nielson

September 5, 2014

Charles Lindbergh Sr. (1859–1924) was a distinguished U.S. politician. In our (dubious) “history books”, however, it is the exploits of his son, Charles Lindbergh Jr. (the famed “aviator”) which are remembered. A closer scrutiny of the career of the father leaves little doubt who was the real “hero” in this family.

Lindbergh Sr. served as a Congressman in the Republican Party from 1907 -1917. During that time; he was one of the most vehement and outspoken members of the U.S. government against the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the rapidly growing influence/power of the Old World Order banking cabal whom we know today as the One Bank. Indeed, as detailed in the superb documentary, The Money Masters, Lindbergh Sr. may have been the most-strident opponent of this banking cabal in that era whom did not succumb to an assassin’s bullet.

Lindbergh quit the Republican Party in 1916, having reached the conclusion (98 years ago) that both U.S. political parties were already irredeemably corrupt, and under the control of:

“…a sinister influence…which, if it is not checked, intends to completely undermine the original purpose of the formation of our Government – change it from the purposes of democracy, and instead make it of a monarchical and plutocratic system, and to bring all the world into one control and one system, which for purposes of deception of the plain people, they would call a “world’s democracy,” but which in fact it is their plan to make the rule of the wealth grabbers, maintained by simple organization of themselves and disorganization of the masses pitting the masses against each other.
...

www.sprottmoney.com...

Doesn't the above statement sound exactly like what we are going through?

I did some more digging trying to find an original source for this information, and one of the few original sources that still survive to this day is a "Locomotive and Firemen's Magazine from November 1892". Below is a link to a digitized copy of this magazine.

Link

The world elites, and world governments want to implement a One World Government, with the excuse to combat Climate Change and for the good of all. But in truth that is a farce, and simply an excuse to acquire all land, even private lands/private property.

Socialism is the vehicle for this take over, and it is the perfect way to make the people of the world believe that "it is done for the good of all and will benefit all", but in fact it would only benefit the real elites. Families like the Rockefellers, and Rothschild.

Under socialism, the government/State controls all means of production, including lands that produce. Through this political and economic system the world elites will control it all, even people's lives.

Europe's climate change goals 'need profound lifestyle changes'

Leaked European commission document calls for wide-ranging debate on how to keep global warming to 1.5C

European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes” required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.

The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian.

It was written in response to last December’s Paris climate summit, which agreed a plan for cutting emissions to net zero after mid-century, and an intent to peg global warming to 1.5C.

Temperatures have already risen by 1C since pre-industrial times and slamming the brakes on climate change “is by no means an easy undertaking”, the document says.

“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.”
...

www.theguardian.com...

Of course, under the excuse of "to combat Climate Change and for the good of all" people's lifestyles will be changed by force. A lot of people believed that this would only affect corporations, but as you can see by this leaked document, what they have planned is for common everyday people to change their lifestyles.

What this means is that the world elites, through the One World Government, will enforce austerity measures that very few people in the west alive today have ever endured. These changes will be slow, but there will be more, and more drastic changes forced on regular people and it won't affect the real elite at all.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have no doubt that a structure similar to the one you are talking about, is a feasible, possible thing.

But if it is, it is not being run for the purpose of promoting, or by advocates of socialism. For the people, by the people is not a motto one could ever attach to such a thing. It smacks of capitalism on steroids and dipped in a pool of radioactive waste though.

In 1933, in the first session of the 73rd Congress, at almost the end of document 43 the Senate wrote:

...
The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State. The fact that citizens, at a given time, may prefer specie to currency, or vice versa, can not prevent Congress from enacting those laws which it deems necessary to the maintenance of a proper monetary system. If the law makes specie and currency equivalent for purposes of payment, a failure to pay a given sum in specie, according to contract, cannot possibly beget an obligation to pay a greater sum in legal-tender notes, whatever premium men may choose to five for gold, when forced to obtain it for a specific purpose, or when impelled by a spirit of speculation, or by a distrust of Government. (Brown v. Welch, supra.)
...

archive.org...

This document the Senate drafted and implemented in 1933 is unconstitutional, as it implies that individuals have no right to property and that it belongs to the State. Meanwhile the Constitution of the United States does not distinguish what private property citizens can have, but that citizens have a right to private property, including land.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have no doubt that a structure similar to the one you are talking about, is a feasible, possible thing.

But if it is, it is not being run for the purpose of promoting, or by advocates of socialism. For the people, by the people is not a motto one could ever attach to such a thing. It smacks of capitalism on steroids and dipped in a pool of radioactive waste though.

in that you are wrong. Socialism states that all means of production, including land that produces, belongs to the State. What these world elites want is exactly the same thing.

You see, socialism dictates that the State has to control all property, such as lands, for the common good. But that common good is decided by the State. Or as it is, by those who control the State.

Just because "you" believe that socialism means something else, doesn't mean that's what will happen.

As it is, if you look at every country that embraced socialism in this manner, giving all power to the State, the people don't really decide what to do with the means of production, it is "the State", and those who control it who decide what to do with it.

This is the perfect scheme the elites can use for no individual people can control lands, or the means of production, whomever controls the State does.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What you seem to forget is that under a true socialism, one which comprises a democratic system, the people are the state. They decide how things are to be done in their name, and the state is merely the tool by which those things are achieved.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What you seem to forget is that under a true socialism, one which comprises a democratic system, the people are the state. They decide how things are to be done in their name, and the state is merely the tool by which those things are achieved.

Except that that particular claim of socialism is a lie. You can't have ALL people deciding what to do with a piece of land... The State is the one who controls, and owns all land in the means of production. Hence socialsim onlyn claims to give this power to the people. But in socialism since no single individual can control the means of production, including land, it falls unto the State to decide what to do with everything the State controls.

It is a facade. They lure the people into believing this will be for the common good of the people to give all power to one branch of the State, and for it to control it all... Since that State was "democratically elected" no matter how those in government/State decide to use the means of production, it was reached by a democratic process. But the People do not have power over these lands nor the means of production... The State under the guise of "for the good of all" are the ones owning it and controlling it.

Socialism was an ingenious way to make the People believe they have the power, but it is the State who has the power...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What you seem to forget is that under a true socialism, one which comprises a democratic system, the people are the state. They decide how things are to be done in their name, and the state is merely the tool by which those things are achieved.

No, representatives of the people will decide... It is not economically viable to have 150 million people all at once decide what to do with the means of production and nothing will ever be done. They will engage in constant arguments on how to better use the resources. Not to mention that the original definition of socialism, is State control, not people control.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The information in the model of the One Bank is fascinating, but I am missing something. Where are the names of these trillionaire Oligarchs? The point, it seems to me, is to name names and take them down -- not merely to name the names of banking and financial institutions which we all know are talons of the demon.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In this day and age, we have the ability to install a system by which each and every eligible voter, could have the capacity to not only comment on, support, or denounce a policy, or set of policies, but table their own, and debate them, gain or lose support for them, and see them written into law.

Direct, distributed democracy is now possible, and by its very definition, of truly making the people the power in a nation, would be socialist in its outworking. Just because socialism has been practiced badly, improperly, and ineffectively in the past, does not mean that it cannot, at some point, be practiced for the benefit of the whole of the people in a nation. These days, we have the tools necessary to do away with leadership and government, and replace it with a true government by, and for the people, where the only motivating factor is the will of the people paying the taxes.

Anyone who tells you that socialism is exclusively bad, is allowing their bias to overpower their logical mind. It is a lie. Like capitalism, it can be used to narrow the concentration of power in a nation or even on a globe, but used wisely, and fairly, and by the whole of the people, and no one singular group or individual within that society, it can be made into a tool which frees a society from the ills of centralisation of power and wealth.

To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and in vast error.

a reply to: Kapriti

Easily found with a diligent search. Try researching the Act of 1871 but, in truth, it all started back in the mid 1600.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have no doubt that a structure similar to the one you are talking about, is a feasible, possible thing.

But if it is, it is not being run for the purpose of promoting, or by advocates of socialism. For the people, by the people is not a motto one could ever attach to such a thing. It smacks of capitalism on steroids and dipped in a pool of radioactive waste though.

in that you are wrong. Socialism states that all means of production, including land that produces, belongs to the State. What these world elites want is exactly the same thing.

You see, socialism dictates that the State has to control all property, such as lands, for the common good. But that common good is decided by the State. Or as it is, by those who control the State.

Just because "you" believe that socialism means something else, doesn't mean that's what will happen.

As it is, if you look at every country that embraced socialism in this manner, giving all power to the State, the people don't really decide what to do with the means of production, it is "the State", and those who control it who decide what to do with it.

This is the perfect scheme the elites can use for no individual people can control lands, or the means of production, whomever controls the State does.

You're right, except that in this scenario, it is far more likely that the land and means of production would be owned either by a conglomeration of corporate and state interests, or by corporations enforced by the state. In other words, not Socialism, but Fascism.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Interesting info thanks for sharing. I've always thought it curious how anyone can claim to own land though.
Conquering and claiming it by force seems to be the prevailing historic technique of acquiring land. Of course it is bought (claimed) with money in this day an age, primarily anyway. My point is, that land wasn't created by anyone, so nobody can say its exclusively theirs.
I know its all a bit more technical than how I have put it, but I have tried to break it down simply to get my point across.
Thanks

a reply to: TrueBrit

Isn't Democracy a flawed system also? for example if 51% vote for one thing, and 49% for another, then the 49% have lost out, meaning nearly half of the population will not be satisfied with the outcome.
Moreover is what the majority wants always necessarily the right or best thing? I accept in some or even many cases putting issues to a vote and going with majority is often the fairest way of deciding an issue. But in some cases is it not better to have the experts decide an issue? Providing the said experts don't have a personal motive naturally.

a reply to: surfer_soul

That is exactly the problem here though. We do not have the right as we speak, to insist that matters pertaining to science, be decided by those who are well versed in it, and will obey our edicts as to ethics. We do not have the right to insist that matters to do with the economy, be dealt with by people who are actually qualified to do so in any capacity what so ever, and will ensure that they comport themselves with honour, as befits any servant of the people.

No. We get to chose a party, place our ballot, and hope that what they do with our votes is worth something, that they were not lying to us, again, predictably, and without relent for the unmpteenth decade straight. None of the parties are fielding people who are qualified to do the damned job, not a single one of them, because the job is representing our will, and they only represent their own.

If they continue to refuse to represent us properly, then they should be replaced with the manifest will of the people, will that ignores the nonsense, the influences which have driven past candidates through to office, past parliaments into session. Will which seeks only the advancement, unification, and protection of these people, the great people of Great Britain. All of them. Every single one. Every single voice heard, every single thought counted, every idea considered.

We could not do a worse job, than those who have come before us in these last four decades.

a reply to: TrueBrit

What you call direct democracy is nothing but chaos. As has been mentioned in the past under direct democracy, and even under socialism, if the majority proclaim that it is ok to burn churches, murder every priest in sight, and every person that looks capitalist, that's what will happen. As another example Spain in 1936, when socialists, communists, and anarchists in Spain decided that they could unleash violence against the clergy, anyone who would proclaim outloud to be Catholic, and anyone that look capitalist. In 3 months, which was when the worst part of the Red Terror occurred, the left had murdered from 50,000-72,000 people. Around 7,000-8,000 of those people were part of the clergy. The left burned churches, destroyed religious figures, including crosses, and murdered people in the street in front of everyone.

That's what direct democracy, and socialism leads to. In the name of "for the common good" you can deny the rights of minorities, and do unspeakable things.

a reply to: Kapriti

Mainly the old families who exist to this day and whose fortunes have increased for over 200 years.

These people include the Rockefellers, the Rothschild, etc. One of the most recent family to become trillionaire is the Gates family. The Gates, alongside other families like the Rockefellers came up with the idea to use vaccinations in third world countries to forcibly sterilize people in third world nations.

This is what some of these well known trillionaire families espouse.

The Rothschild.

The mission of the Edmond de Rothschild Foundations is to promote social empowerment and a collaborative society. It is rooted in a century-long tradition of giving founded on humanism, inclusion and the search for excellence. We continue to apply the same principles in the transformation of our philanthropic legacy by identifying innovative solutions and creative partnerships in education, the arts, health and social entrepreneurship.
...

www.edrfoundations.org...

To promote social empowerment and a collaborative society = socialism.

The Rockefellers.

Promoting the well-being of humanity around the world.

Universal Health coverage is key to building resilience health systems that make people and planet healthy.

Judith Rodin- President, The Rockefeller Foundation.

Health for ALL EVERYWHERE
...

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...-should-we-prioritize-universal-health-coverage

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

Meanwhile these families claim to promote these things, what they do behind the scenes is to use "universal health coverage" to vaccinate millions of people in third world countries and to sterilize these people without their consent.

The Gates family has also united with the older families to unleash their globalization plans by enforcing vaccinations that forcibly sterilize millions of people.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Facts for Melinda Gates
NO CONTROVERSY?

Melinda Gates and her partners, including the British government and the world’s largest abortion providers, have launched a $4 billion campaign to push birth control onto poor women in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Ms. Gates claims that there is “no controversy” in powerful groups and governments promoting birth control for poor women, but here are the facts:
...
Melinda Gates’ partners, Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Foundation, were founded by leaders in the early eugenics and population control movements, and who were very open about the fact that they did not like the idea of poor people of color having children.
...

www.hli.org...

Group Accuses Gates Foundation, USAID of Hiding Injectable Contraceptive Dangers (13461)
Congressional hearings are being triggered by allegations that agencies concealed FDA warnings from poor minority women targeted for the injections.

by CELESTE MCGOVERN 12/26/2013

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of impoverished women and girls in both the U.S. and Africa are not being told about dangerous side effects associated with a contraceptive injection that is heavily promoted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), USAID, Planned Parenthood and a collection of “racist” family-planning groups, a human-rights report alleges.

The scathing report from the Washington-based Rebecca Project for Human Rights, a group that advocates for vulnerable women and girls in the U.S. and Africa, accuses the Gates Foundation of colluding with family-planning organizations to deliberately conceal known risks of the injectable hormonal contraceptive, Depo-Provera, manufactured by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company, to promote a “population-control ideology.
...

Read more: www.ncregister.com...

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat

John Harlow, Los Angeles

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of Americas wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

What they want.

Updated Tue at 3:27pmTue 2 Sep 2014, 3:27pm

A new world order is being built that no one country can dictate, suggests US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, while also assessing USA's action against Islamic State.
...

www.abc.net.au...

No country can dictate this New World Order, it will be the rich families and their thugs who will dictate how to run the world.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." - "The First Global Revolution", A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991.
...

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

For more info.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These people hide behind euphemisms, claiming it will be done for the good of all, but in fact all they are doing is making people believe it is for our good, meanwhile they are only imposing their will on everyone.

So, it is for our own good to be forcibly sterilized, and it is for our own good that the rich elites will control it all, and not the people.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea but noam chomsky told me anarcho-com spanish towns was the best system to ever happen.

Direct democracy is scary. It rages, it cries, it terrorizes, it is illogical.
The goal should be to get thee best men and women to administrate. How we decide who they are I cannot say.
Really Direct democracy is scary because of the "illusion of knowledge", people think they know more than they do.
On facebook today I seen a post 3-3*6+2=?? over 75% of people got this wrong. A super majority.

Shame we could not stay on topic lol, To learn more I suppose I should go rewatch money masters but man is that a long movie.

originally posted by: jellyrev
...
Shame we could not stay on topic lol, To learn more I suppose I should go rewatch money masters but man is that a long movie.

How is showing what the world leaders/rich elite have been doing and what they have planned "going off-topic"?

Sextremely late to the party...I read about this....guess who wins.....
In the bit that I read up on.....the creator laughs at their plan and then states He will hold them up in front of all.....