9/11 en de voorkennis van de aanslagen in de VS

Brasscheck TV heeft afgelopen week een aantal video's en geluidsfragmenten gepubliceerd waarin duidelijk te zien en te horen is dat de aanslagen op o.a. het WTC in 2001 een door de VS zelf georganiseerde zaak is......

Ook het volgende artikel en video van Brasscheck TV gaat door op deze weg, in de video zie je bijvoorbeeld een man, die zogenaamd toevallig aanwezig was en kort na deze aanslagen al het verhaal ophangt dat de VS tot op de dag van vandaag volhoudt, ondanks het grote aantal deskundigen die van dit verhaal gehakt hebben gemaakt (dat de vliegtuigen een zo heftige brand hebben veroorzaakt dat de Twin Towers zijn ingestort, iets dat volgens deze deskundigen alleen met explosieven bereikt kan worden, springstoffen vooral in de basis van de torens en gebouw 7 van het WTC....) Zelfs presentatoren van nieuwszenders wisten vlak na de aanval al te vertellen wat er gebeurd was, althans wat de toenmalige en opvolgende VS regeringen de wereld willen laten geloven dat er gebeurd is......

De redactie van Brasscheck TV destijds kwam een paar uur na de aanslagen tot de conclusie dat het een 'inside job' moet zijn geweest, ofwel dat de VS zelf de zaak heeft georganiseerd. Volgens de redactie kon dit niet anders, gezien de enorme organisatie die nodig was om e.e.a. te regelen, een 'job' waar de luchtdefensie van de VS bij betrokken moet zijn geweest.... Uiteraard was onderdeel van het oordeel dat Brasscheck gaf, de hiervoor aangehaalde figuren die met voorkennis de gebeurtenissen 'beoordeelden' voor de camera's.

Onder het geheel nog een video van Brasscheck waarin men het geldspoor van deze aanslagen volgt (follow the money) om bij de daders en handlangers te komen. Zo hebben 'de eigenaren' (lease contract voor 99 jaar) van de Twin Towers, Larry Silverstein en zijn bedrijf Silverstein Properties plus een paar andere miljonairs kapitalen verdiend aan deze aanslagen, waarvoor ze een paar dagen tevoren nog verzekeringen hadden afgesloten......

De daders hadden de idee dat de servers en harde schijven van de Deutsche Bank vernietigd zouden zijn nadat de gebouwen waren ingestort, echter een gespecialiseerde Duitse firma (destijds het enige bedrijf ter wereld) heeft toch informatie van de harde schijven enz. kunnen achterhalen, daaruit blijkt dat de computers van de Deutsche Bank vlak voor de aanslagen werden overgenomen door een derde. Men kon zien dat vlak voor de aanslagen een bedrag van 100 miljoen dollar van eigenaar veranderde.......

Uit transacties kon men later afleiden dat o.a. wapenfabrikanten flink garen hebben gesponnen bij de aanslagen, waaruit blijkt dat er voorkennis moet zijn geweest over de aanslagen, ook aandelenhandelaren hebben grote bedragen 'verdiend' met voorkennis van de aanslagen.....

Het bedrijf Ptech komt een aantal keren terug in de video en wordt genoemd als sponsor van terreurgroepen..... Zelfs de NAVO heeft geprofiteerd van de aanslagen. Ex-CIA agent Robert Bear is ervan overtuigd dat men zelfs in het Witte Huis van te voren op de hoogte moet zijn geweest van de destijds nog komende aanslagen op 11 september 2001........

Nogmaals zoals al vaak op deze plek gesteld: zie wie er profiteert van dergelijke aanslagen en beste bezoeker, die mensen vindt je vooral in de VS! Zo profiteerden en profiteren wapenfabrikanten nog steeds van de meer dan belachelijke oorlog tegen terreur (war on terror)...... Hetzelfde geldt voor de geheime diensten die er kapitalen bijkregen en intussen bevoegdheden hebben die thuishoren in de eerste beste dictatuur..... Ook de politie heeft geprofiteerd van de 9/11 aanslagen, in de VS begint de politie meer en meer op een militaire macht te lijken, zoveel extra geld is daar in deze machtshandhaver van de overheid gestoken....... George W. Bush profiteerde daar hij voor de aanslagen te boek stond als de minst populaire president ooit.... De beurs lag al op z'n reet voor de aanslagen, maar na de aanslagen werd en wordt er gesteld dat de beurs op z'n reet ging door die aanslagen....... Mensen er zijn wat betreft de profiterende organisaties en bedrijven nog veel meer namen te noemen >> zie de video.

Eén ding is zeker; de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 zijn een heel smerige zaak waar de VS zelf de hand in heeft gehad...... (er zouden overigens ook miljarden aan staatsschulden van de VS zijn verdampt bij deze aanslagen.....) 

9/11 And The News Media Puppet Show

It's scary to admit this, but we were one of the first - if not the first - to publicly state that 9/11 could NOT have been anything but an inside job.

We made that statement in writing via email to the Brasscheck list before noon on 9/11.

Why were we so sure?

Logistics. The world runs on logistics.

Nothing this complicated could have been executed without extensive planning and control over the operation of country's air defense.

Also, when we saw the early and well coordinated media disinfo campaign coming from all the television networks we knew the event had to have been prearranged.

(We were also the first to call attention to the existence of "crisis actors" though we did not call them that at the time.)

Copied all over the Internet, this Brasscheck video has been seen well over 5 million times.

THE 9/11 SOLUTION

HOW THE MYTH WAS SOLD

AN ORIGINAL BRASSCHECKTV.COM PRODUCTION

We produced this in 2003 and released it in time for the second year anniversary of 9/11.

It’s been viewed over 5 million times.

It’s also been taken down dozens of times by various hosting companies trying to obscure how many times it’s actually been viewed.

Notice that in perfectly coordinated fashion, the top US TV news networks pinned the crime of 9/11 on Osama bin Laden before the dust had even settled.

Here’s everything you need to know about TV news:

Anchormen (and women) are just actors.

They may have dabbled in news reporting at one time in their lives, but they are hired for their ability to convey stories credibly…whether they know what they’re talking about or not and whether it’s true or not.

The ability to credibly speak utter nonsense to millions night after night is a relatively rare skill and is very highly paid.

That’s what newsreaders get their big salaries for and they understand that to keep the paychecks coming, they’ve got to keep reading the ‘news’ – whatever is handed to them to read – and make it sound believable without question.

The real power in the newsroom is held by the person who hands the news reader the script, selects the guest “experts” and tells the reporters on the street who to talk to.

To pull off the scam you saw in this video requires a grand total of just three people (one for each of the clips.) Three “embedded” news directors in the employ of an intelligence agency.

All year long these people collect two paychecks, one from the TV network and one from the Agency.

When needed, they do what needs to be done – as they all clearly did in perfectly coordinated fashion the first hours after the 9/11 attack.

Ready to to deeper down the rabbit hole?

Check out this live news report, just hours before John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Video:https://www.brasscheck.com/video/the-9-11-solution/

- Brasscheck TV

P.S. We can't make this unique news service available without the help of our subscribers.

​​​​​​​

Please consider joining the ranks of BrasscheckTV.com supporters

Thanks!

Details here:https://www.brasscheck.com/video/donate-to-brasscheck-tv/

=============================

THE 9/11 BONANZA FOLLOWING THE MONEY

(hier de link naar de tekst bij dit bericht)
===================================
Zie ook:
'9/11 voorkennis verzwegen in officiële rapporten'

'9/11: New Yorkse brandweercommandanten vragen een nieuw onderzoek naar de aanslagen op het het WTC in 2001'

'9/11 No Question, It Was Controlled Demolition'

'9/11: de teller voor het aantal door VS/NAVO gedode mensen staat intussen op meer dan 2,5 miljoen'

'SPECIAL REPORT - More Censored 9/11 History'

'First The Explosion And Then The "Planes"'

'9/11 "The Palestinians cheered" hoax'

'9/11 Wiring The Buildings'

Hier nog wat onderbroekbom berichten:
'De onderbroekbom-leugen ten behoeve van onveilige body scanners' 

'De onderbroekbom: één grote leugen, die duizenden vliegveld bodyscanners heeft 'opgeleverd'' 

'Onderbroekbom (25 december 2009) een enorm onzin verhaal, weer zijn we voorgelogen.......'

'Azijnpisser eist per direct strengere anti-terreurmaatregelen!!!'

'Een onderbroekbom'
Voor meer berichten over 9/11 klik op het label 911, direct onder dit bericht (het kan zijn dat je na een aantal berichten het laatste telkens herhaald ziet, dan even opnieuw onder het laatst gelezen bericht op hetzelfde label klikken).

SWIFT betalingssysteem raakt monopolie (gelukkig) kwijt

Het SWIFT (internationaal) betalingssysteem heeft door het psychopathisch terreur gedrag van de VS haar beste tijd gehad. De VS gebruikte SWIFT o.a. om een staatsgreep in Iran te forceren, door Iran in 2012 uit te sluiten van SWIFT (met de sancties die de VS Iran heeft opgelegd, wil Trump Iran opnieuw uitsluiten van SWIFT.....).

Ofwel: de VS gebruikt SWIFT als terreurwapen tegen staten die de VS niet welgevallig zijn.... Gelukkig heeft de VS daarmee in haar eigen staart gebeten, zo heeft China al een eigen intern systeem en Rusland heeft haar eigen internationale betalingssysteem 'gelanceerd': SPFS, waar het land nu overlegt met China, Turkije en Iran voor deelname aan dit systeem.

Met haar handelen isoleert de VS zich steeds meer, volkomen terecht stelt Tom Luongo in het hieronder opgenomen artikel (door Tyler Durden 'geredigeerd' en op Zero Hedge geplaatst) dat de bankwereld pas echt wakker zal worden als de VS de Duitse Bank zou willen straffen voor het handelen in Russische energie (gas en/of olie) en die bank zou daarop besluiten om van SWIFT op SPFS over te stappen.

Ongelofelijk dat de VS denkt werkelijk iedereen de valse VS wet voor te kunnen schrijven (en te belachelijk voor woorden dat men de VS over de wereld als een psychopathische massamoordenaar tekeer laat gaan...).....

For Russia, Change Comes SWIFTly

by Tyler Durden

Sat, 11/03/2018 - 22:05

Authored by Tom Luongo,

During the ruble crisis of 2014/15 Russia announced in the wake of U.S. and European sanctions over reunifying with Crimea that it would begin building a domestic electronic financial transfer system, an alternative to SWIFT.

That system, System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), is not only now functioning in Russia, according to a report from RT it now handles the financial transfer data for more than half of Russia’s institutions.

According to Anatoly Aksakov, head of the Russian parliamentary committee on financial markets:

The number of users of our internal financial messages’ transfer system is now greater than that of those using SWIFT. We’re already holding talks with China, Iran and Turkey, along with several other countries, on linking our system with their systems,” Aksakov said.

“They need to be properly integrated with each other in order to avoid any problems with using the countries’ internal financial messaging systems.”

This is a follow up to last month’s boast by the Russians that their system was seeing a lot of international interest.  How much of this is boast and how much of it is reality remains to be seen, but the important point here is that the minute the U.S. weaponized SWIFT for use in its foreign policy, something like this was bound to occur.

China has its own internal system.  And other countries are building theirs as well.

The SWIFT Cost

A common theme on this blog is that control is an illusion.  Power is ephemeral.  The best way to exercise your power is to have it but never use it.  Because once you do use it you define for your enemies the costs of their lack of compliance to your edicts.

And if there is one thing humans are good at it is responding to known incentives.  Once we can calculate the cost of one behavior over another we can then decide which one is more important to us.

Once costs of staying in SWIFT rise above the benefits of building your own alternative, you build an alternative.

SWIFT is a market power similar to a CEO having billions in restricted stock in their company.  A lot of hay is made about the net worth of people like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg.

Quoting their net worth by multiplying their known holdings times the current price of the stock is useless.  Because they can’t sell it.  It is market power or perceived wealth that evaporates the moment they signal to the market their intention to sell.

In reality, if they tried to sell their stock all at once the value of the stock would plummet as buyers would run for the hills and they would realize far less than their stated net worth before the selling began.

So, if anything they are a captive of their own success, needing to manage the creation carefully to avoid damaging its reputation, market position and, ultimately, its business.

SWIFT is a monopoly system, a monopoly born of convenience and inertia thanks to it being neutral to whims of international political spats.  Enter the late stage of imperial thinking in the U.S. where our control over world affairs is waning first in the hearts and minds of various people around the world and then in policy and you have the beginning of the end of SWIFT as the only international financial transfer system.

Back in 2010, I remember Jim Sinclair banging his shoe on the table about our threatening Switzerland over opening up its customer data looking for ‘tax cheats’ under FATCA.  He said then that the Obama administration was idiotic for doing this.

This is where I got the maxim, once you go nuclear you have no other option.  

And he was right.

Then Iran was cut out of SWIFT in 2012 to effect regime change which also failed.  And that woke the world up to the reality.  The U.S. and Europe will attempt to destroy your livelihood if you dare oppose its unilateral demands.

Our political and financial elites, The Davos Crowd, will stop at literally nothing to ensure your compliance.

Too bad that SWIFT is just code.  It’s just an encrypted messaging system.  And like the push to stifle alternative voices on social media - de-platforming Alex Jones and Gab for examples - the solution to authoritarian control is not fighting fire with fire, but technology.

And that’s exactly what Russia has done.  They applied themselves, spent the money and wrote their own code.  Code is, after all, hard to control.

De-coding SWIFT’s Power

It is also what is happening all over the Internet communications supply chain right now.  The infrastructure independent content producers need to resist corporate control is being built and will see their businesses rise as so many more people are now woke to the reality of the situation.

As Russian banks and businesses reap the benefits of no longer existing under SWIFT’s Sword of Damocles, others will see the same benefits.

I’ve been making this point all year, the more the Trump administration uses tariffs and sanctions to achieve its political goals the more it will ultimately weaken the U.S.’s position worldwide.  It won’t happen overnight.

It will build, gradually, steadily until one day the threat will no longer be there.

We may have already reached that moment as President Trump has ruled out pressuring SWIFT to cut Iran out of the system.  Too bad his evil Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin doesn’t agree with him.

But, Mnuchin is living in the past, he doesn’t respect the resistance that’s forming to U.S. financial hegemony.  He will though when it proves ineffectual.

Russia’s SPFS will gain clients across Iran, Turkey, China and the rest of its close trading partners.  This will accelerate the de-dollarization of Russia’s main trade, hydrocarbons, since many of these countries are major buyers of Russian oil.

When you hear the announcement from a German bank under sanctions from the U.S. for trading in Russian energy that it will use SPFS as its transfer system, that will be the real wake up call to the markets.

Change then will comes, forgive the obvious pun, swiftly.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you want to understand how swiftly things change.

Tag Business Finance

==========================

Zie ook:
'Trump gelooft zijn geheime diensten inzake Iran niet meer' 

'Trump administratie chanteert en bedreigt de EU over 'schending' onterechte VS-sancties tegen Iran' (zie ook de links in dat bericht)

'Iran houdt zich aan nucleair verdrag, ondanks VS agressie'

'Frankrijk beschermt Iran tegen de 'politieagent' van de wereld, de VS'

'VS vermoordt Iraniërs met sancties, EU doodstil.......'

'The New Tyranny of the Dollar'

Mijn excuus voor de fout in de kop, hier stond onterecht monopoly te lezen, wat uiteraard monopolie moet zijn; mijn excuus. 

Tekst aangepast op 9 november 2018, na controle van meerdere andere berichten. (was ervan overtuigd dat Rusland haar systeem voor een groot deel nog moest optuigen)

Derivatenhandel die mede de grote bankencrisis in 2008 veroorzaakte, weer terug (van amper weggeweest..).......

Derivaten die ons zoveel ellende hebben veroorzaakt, zijn in de VS weer op het niveau van voor de grote banken-, of kredietcrisis van 2008, een crisis die mede werd veroorzaakt door de handel in derivaten...... Overigens was de handel in 2014 zelfs nog groter dan voor de bankencrisis  van 2008......

In Nederland kregen derivaten pas een slechte naam, na het misdadig handelen van Vestia bestuurder Staal, echter Vestia was allesbehalve alleen als woningcorporatie, die dit wanproduct gebruikte om te gokken op de financiële markten...... Ook bestuurders van gemeenten vonden het wel kies om met gemeenschapsgeld een gok te wagen....... Aan deze zaken werd geen eind gemaakt door CDA leeghoofd Spies in Balkenende 4, wel bepaalde ze dat men dit niet met te grote bedragen mocht doen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Door de crisis van 2008 zijn over de wereld meer dan 100 miljoen mensen in de ellende gestort, de verantwoordelijken, waaronder bankiers, zijn amper of helemaal niet aangepakt en men is intussen nog steeds bezig met deze smerige derivaten, alsof er niets is gebeurd............ De meeste slachtoffers zitten nog steeds in de drek........

Gisteren bracht Anti-Media het bericht dat zoals gezegd de derivatenhandel weer op grote hoogten wankelt...................

Wall Street Derivatives That Helped Crash the Economy in 2008 Are Back — in a Big Way

November 1, 2017 at 4:47 pm
Written by Shaun Bradley

(ANTIMEDIA) — The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Agency recently fined Merrill Lynch $45 million, once again sparking concerns over the massive derivatives market.

The wealth management division of Bank of America failed to report more than 68 million derivatives transactions dating all the way back to 2014. It had already been forced to pay $20 million in 2015 for an earlier offense. Despite major players throughout the financial industry paying a total of over $350 billion in fines since the 2008 crisis, those same institutions are still thriving and have amassed more than a $1 trillion in profits.

The current penalties amount to little more than a slap on the wrist for these megabanks and have become a normal part of doing business. It’s no surprise that the same reckless behavior that helped lead to the Great Recession is still rampant. The global derivatives market was reportedly as large as $1.5 quadrillion in 2016, and things haven’t improved much since then. Collusion between large financial institutions, central banks, and governments around the world has fostered an environment with almost zero accountability. Hopefully, as more people become educated about the possible dangers associated with complex financial derivatives, it will be easier to prevent wild speculation like what is seen today.

Derivatives are one of the most complex and least understood financial instruments. Instead of establishing their value through a share of a company’s profits or a future dividend, derivatives are essentially side bets made between third parties. Commodity futures contracts are an example of a simple derivative. Farmers have used them to protect themselves against price changes that could significantly impact their businesses from season to season.

However, these financial tools aren’t just limited to hard assets and can be used to speculate on every industry, asset, and currency in the world financial system. The growing attention from regulators on the derivatives market may uncover what many investors and economists previously warned about. In 2003, Warren Buffett infamously classified derivatives as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘time-bombs.’

He doubled down on the assertion during a more recent interview, saying:

“At some point they are likely to cause big trouble…Derivatives lend themselves to huge amounts of speculation…The problem arises when there is a discontinuity in the market for some reason or another…When the markets closed like it was for a few days after 9/11 or in World War I the market was closed for four or five months – anything that disrupts the continuity of the market when you have trillions of dollars of nominal amounts outstanding and no ability to settle up and who knows what happens when the market reopens.”

Merrill Lynch and Bank of America haven’t been the only ones prosecuted over their derivatives exposure and practices. Deutsche Bank is poised to lose $60 billion for using currency derivatives to speculate on U.S. inflation rates, the ‘London Whale’ scandal ended up costing JPMorgan $920 million, and just a month ago, Citi was ordered to close $2 billion worth of derivatives taken over during the collapse of Lehman Brothers. These potentials for volatile swings in market valuations can quickly undermine the solvency of institutions that hold a majority of the pensions, savings accounts, and retirement funds for the public.

The first overview report on the E.U. derivatives market was just published by the Europe Security and Markets Authority. It found that the nominal value of derivative holdings within the European Union was valued at $536 trillion. London alone handles nearly 40% of all interest-rate derivative trades for the European Union, and uncertainty continues to grow about the impact Brexit will have on the strength of major European banks.

Confidence in the current system seems to be eroding with each failed promise and debt crisis. If faith in central planning is shaken again like in 2008, the result could impact the daily lives of almost everyone. The once responsible stewards of the public’s wealth have been corrupted by power, greed, and self-preservation. The that have been perpetually fined trivial amounts by inept regulators will continue to make trillions while the savers and retirees suffer as a result.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

==========================================

Zie ook: 'Liesbeth Spies, Spies pakt 't derivaten probleem 'goed' aan'

        en: 'Derivaten deel 85: lokale overheden investeerden ook in derivaten'

Monsanto vergiftigt niet alleen de wereld, maar heeft zelfs de moordenaars bv Blackwater opgekocht........

Het volgende bericht kwam ik tegen op het blog van Stan van Houcke. In dit bericht (uit 2013), dat van Counter Current News (slecht werkende site) komt, wordt uitgelegd dat Monsanto, de grote gifmengers en gentech schoften, het agressief paramilitaire bedrijf Blackwater (later 'Ex Services' en nu 'Academi' genoemd) opkocht. Blackwater werkte o.a. voor multinationals als Monsanto, Chevron en banken als Barclays en Deutsche Bank. Blackwater heeft zich in het verleden o.a. schuldig gemaakt aan diverse oorlogsmisdaden en terrorisme in het algemeen. Daar Blackwater een privé onderneming is, die weliswaar veel voor het ministerie van defensie (lees: ministerie van oorlog) in de VS werkt, kan de regering van de VS daarmee alle claims over oorlogsmisdaden en terrorisme afwijzen en daarmee Blackwater zoveel mogelijk smerige zaken laten uitvoeren.........

Het laat zich raden waarom Monsanto een bedrijf als Blackwater opkocht, immers het bedrijf heeft er belang bij, dat haar zaden overal worden verkocht en dat regeringen de boeren houden aan hun contracten met Monsanto. Zo heeft een groot aantal boeren in India zich het leven benomen, daar ze volkomen failliet gingen door hun contract met Monsanto. Dat zit zo: Monsanto verkoopt zaden aan boeren, waarbij die boeren ervoor tekenen, dat zij niet zelf de zaden vermeerderen (zoals ze al duizenden jaren hebben gedaan en doen). Monsanto belooft die boeren gouden bergen, als zij hun zaden afnemen, echter als het tegenzit, bijvoorbeeld door grote droogte, of slecht weer, houden de boeren geen geld over om zaden te kopen voor het volgende seizoen..... Uiteraard geeft Monsanto grote kortingen op de eerste levering, zoals een heroïne dealer dat doet met zijn klanten......

Het laat zich raden, dat er ontwikkelingslanden zijn, die hun boeren niet gaan lastigvallen met de claims van Monsanto, dan is het uiteraard erg handig, als je een goedgetrainde ploeg psychopaten achter de hand hebben, om hun claims 'wat meer kracht' bij te zetten...........

Naast dit alles heeft Monsanto nog te maken met milieugroepen, die (volkomen terecht) tegen gentech zijn en bovendien tegen het op grote schaal verspreiden van zwaar gif over de aarde, door dit klote bedrijf......... Altijd handig om een stel psychopaten achter de hand te hebben, om je belangen veilig te stellen, ja toch....???

Monsanto and Blackwater

Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group!

February 2, 2013 2:39 pm·

Reports that the huge multinational corporation Monsanto bought the largest mercenary army in the world might have seemed ridiculous on the surface. But it turns out that’s exactly what happened.

A report authored by Jeremy Scahill for The Nation revealed that Blackwater, later called Xe Services and more recently “Academi”, had been sold to Monsanto.

The clandestine intelligence service was renamed in 2009 after it became notorious and synonymous with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians.

The group, originally founded in 1997 by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince, remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services.” It exists in its functional capacity, so that the state may engage in terrorism while giving the government the opportunity to deny it, because those carrying out the war crimes are not directly reporting to members of the U.S. military hierarchy.

A number of military and former CIA officers are said to work for the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater. The purpose has always been to increase profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations.

Scahill indicates that the group does business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, but that this is done through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share the group.

One of those partners is Cofer Black, who was known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA.

He is alleged to have been the one who made contact with Monsanto back in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence. Black entered into the contract with the company in order to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant, according to sources close to Academi.

Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, when asked directly by Scahill about this. But he later confirmed to The Nation that the company had in fact hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009.

According to Monsanto, this was only to keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He asserted, however, that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater,” even though it is just one of the myriad of names and forms the massive mercenary group has adopted over the years.

Scahill himself, however, says that he has copies of emails from Cofer Black. They explain that after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.”

In all, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009. After these details began to leak out, they seem to have buried the paper trail, and perhaps utilized yet another front for Blackwater to provide the same services.

Activists have claimed to have confronted agents of Monsanto who roughly fit the description of mercenaries with the group. Whatever name they are utilizing at this point, it seems reasonable that if they have been used in the past – and if they have repeatedly changed their names and added sub-groups to their organization – that they have only done the same thing once again.

Monsanto has been criticized by an array of environmental, peace and even health activists for their production of toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), as well as their more common business in selling pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

So why were so many media outlets, editorialists and bloggers clamoring to say that the purchase was a “hoax”?

That’s a good question. The more cynical among us might suspect a financial incentive from Monsanto itself to such “journalists.” Monsanto indeed has hired a public relations team to seek out critical blogs and websites reporting on their crimes against both Nature and humankind. We have seen this first hand in comments on PoliticalBlindSpot.com articles on Monsanto. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that they have created blogs where seemingly legitimate authors write organic thoughts, observations and rebuttals. The public presumes these are real-world people, when in fact they are working PR for the company.

But the core argument of those who claim that the Monsanto purchase of Blackwater is not true lies in the fact that we can only officially document Blackwater being hired by Monsanto for years. Immediately following this extensive work that Blackwater did for Monsanto, they sold the company. Because of the nature of how the sale transpired, it is impossible to document who the sale was to. The obvious and logical conclusion to insiders (particularly in the private security industry), however, is that the sale was in fact to Monsanto who had been employing the group.

Xe (now Academi) has, indeed, been purchased, and while there’s no way of DOCUMENTING who the new owners really are, the logical conclusion would be that Monsanto, who had been employing them prior to the sale are the new owners. This, of course, would also make sense of the secrecy surrounding the deal and the identity of the new owners. The company was bought out by private investors via private equity companies that don’t have to divulge any of their dealings, with Bank of America providing much of the $200 million in financing for the deal.

New York-based USTC Holdings said it will acquire Xe and its core operating subsidiaries, but did not disclose the price or terms of the agreement in a statement.

USTC Holdings is an investor consortium led by private equity firms Forte Capital Advisors and Manhattan Partners.

Various researchers have been trying to document the buy via a paper trail, but so far without much luck. That, of course, is the point.

One thing that is known: Forte Capital Advisors is the baby of long-time Blackwater ally Jason De Yonker:

DeYonker has unique experience with the Company that dates back to its founding in the late 1990s. He advised the Company through development of its early business plan and expansion of the Moyock training facility as well as supporting negotiations of its first training contracts with U.S. government agencies. Between 1998 and 2002, Mr. DeYonker co-managed Xe founder, Erik Prince’s family office which included management of Mr. Prince’s portfolio companies.

What does that mean? The guy is a glorified accountant.

Prior to joining Forté, Jason co-managed a +$100 million family office. In addition to actively managing various platform companies, Jason was a part of the executive team responsible for family wealth management.

Jason has spent the last 18 years advising on various mergers, acquistions and divestitures with an aggregate transaction value greater than $1 billion. Jason’s experience include: transaction advisory, portfolio management, real estate development, venture capital and cross border dealings. Jason began his career with Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Group, and was a Director in Deloitte & Touche’s Corporate Finance Group. He also was the Finance Director for the West Family Trust, a venture capital group focused on cross-border transactons.

Jason recieved a Bachelor of Business Administration, with a concentration in finance and accounting, from the Univeristy of Michigan.

The other investor? It looks like the very junior partner will be Manhattan Partners, a private equity company – a shop that gathers money from anonymous rich investors and uses the pool of cash to  leverage buyouts of big companies they wouldn’t have been able to take over on their own.

Manhattan Partners invests in “compelling growth and special situation transactions,” but this will be their first known foray into defense industries – WarIsBusiness.com reports (via Spencer Ackerman):

Manhattan Growth Partners is led by Dean Bosacki and Patrick McBride. Bosacki serves on the board of “the world’s largest commencement photography business,” among other companies. Manhattan Growth Partners, which describes itself as “a progressive thinking private equity firm,” also holds a majority interest in Hugo Naturals, a line of organic, vegan-friendly soaps, lotions, scents and soy candles sold at Whole Foods and other greenwashed retailers.

So what does this all mean? Did Monsanto actually buy Blackwater? The answer is yes, but indirectly. The purchase was made through shell company and a pair of private equity firms. At the end of the day, it would seem the logical conclusion is that in spite of arguments to the contrary, Monsanto in fact did by the Blackwater mercenary group… or at least the renamed Blackwater Xe, and now Academi Services group. The big question, now is why?

(Article by M. David, Jackson Marciana and I.A. Jamal; image via #Op309 Media)

http://countercurrentnews.com/2013/02/monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-group/#

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dit geldt niet voor het label 'Blackwater',