Flashback from 1975: “The NSA's Capability ... Could Enable It To Impose Total Tyranny, And There Would Be No Way To Fight Back

George Washington's picture

Senator Church’s Prophetic Warning

Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's]  capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.  [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.

Now, the NSA is building a $2 billion dollar facility in Utah which will use the world’s most powerful supercomputer to monitor virtually all phone calls, emails, internet usage, purchases and rentals, break all encryption, and then store everyone’s data permanently.

The former head of the program for the NSA recently held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:

We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state

So Senator Church’s warning was prophetic.

Spying Began Before 9/11

While you might assume that the NSA’s spying on Americans is a response to 9/11, the government’s illegal spying on Americans actually began before 9/11.

Bloomberg reported in 2006:

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.


“The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,” plaintiff’s lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. “This undermines that assertion.”


“The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T’s participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security’ and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,” AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.


U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment.

And see this and this.

In other words, the NSA’s trashing of the constitutional rights of American citizens had nothing to do with 9/11.

NSA Heard the 9/11 Hijackers’ Plans from Their Own Mouths … But Didn’t Stop Them

Indeed, the NSA was listening in on the 9/11 hijackers’ phone calls before 9/11, but didn’t do a whole lot to stop them:

  • The National Security Agency and the FBI were each independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the  mastermind’s phone calls
  • According to various sources, on the day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker “tomorrow is zero hour” and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind’s phone calls
  • According to the Sunday Herald, two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.” U.S. officials later told CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of Bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
  • And according to CBS News, at 9:53 a.m on 9/11, just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, “the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden’s operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former
    Soviet Republic of Georgia”, and secretary of Defense Rumsfeld learned about the intercepted phone call in real-time (if the NSA monitored and transcribed phone calls in real-time on 9/11, that implies that it probably did so in the months leading up to 9/11 as well)

As we reported in 2008, the NSA even monitored the hijackers within the United States:

We’ve previously pointed out that the U.S. government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouth. Most of what we wrote about involved the NSA and other intelligence services tapping top Al Qaeda operatives’ phone calls outside the U.S.


However, as leading NSA expert James Bamford - the Washington  Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings for almost a decade, winner of a number of journalism awards for coverage national security issues, whose articles have appeared in dozens of publications, including cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, Washington Post Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine, and the only author to write any books (he wrote 3) on the NSA – reports, the NSA was also tapping the hijackers’ phone calls inside the U.S.


Specifically, hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi lived in San Diego, California, for 2 years before 9/11. Numerous phone calls between al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego and a high-level Al Qaeda operations base in Yemen were made in those 2 years.


The NSA had been tapping and eavesdropping on all calls made from that Yemen phone for years. So NSA recorded all of these phone calls.


Indeed, the CIA knew as far back as 1999 that al-Mihdhar was coming to the U.S. Specifically, in 1999, CIA operatives tailing al-Mihdha in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, obtained a copy of his passport. It contained visas for both Malaysia and the U.S., so they knew it was likely he would go from Kuala Lumpur to America.

ABC News reported in 2002:

Shortly before Sept. 11, NSA intercepts detected multiple phone calls from Abu Zubaida, bin Laden’s chief of  operations, to the United States. The intercepts were never passed on.

And Raw Story wrote in 2008:

Author James Bamford looked into the performance of the NSA … and found that it had been closely monitoring the 9/11 hijackers as they moved freely around the United States and communicated with Osama bin Laden’s operations center in Yemen. The NSA had even tapped bin Laden’s satellite phone, starting in 1996.


“The NSA never alerted any other agency that the terrorists were in the United States and moving across the country towards Washington,”  Bamford told PBS.


PBS also found that “the 9/11 Commission never looked closely into NSA’s role in the broad intelligence breakdown behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. If they had, they would have understood the full extent to which the agency had major pieces of the puzzle but never put them together or disclosed their entire body of knowledge to the CIA and the FBI.”


In a review of Bamford’s book, former senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey wrote, “As the 9/11 Commission later established, U.S. intelligence officials knew that al-Qaeda had held a  planning meeting in Malaysia, found out the names of two recruits who had been present — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — and suspected that one and maybe both of them had flown to Los Angeles. Bamford reveals that the NSA had been eavesdropping for months on their calls to Yemen, yet the agency ‘never made the effort’ to trace where the calls originated. ‘At any time, had the FBI been notified, they could have found Hazmi in a matter of seconds.’”


Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer told PBS, “None of this information that we’re speaking about this evening’s in the 9/11 Commission report. They simply ignored all of it.”

Spying Unrelated to Keeping Us Safe

As we’ve previously documented, the spying isn’t being done to keep us safe … but to crush dissent

and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and here).

Indeed, the NSA monitoring efforts will not focus on spying on potential terrorists – or even criminal activity – but in recording every phone call, email, internet search or other communication in the country.

Not Just the NSA: Other Agencies and Shady Foreign Groups Spying on Americans As Well

It’s not just the NSA.

As Nat Hentoff writes:

Thirty years after Church’s principled stand, the Washington Post reported that the NSA had already been  enlisting other intelligence
to assist its surveillance of “people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections” (“Bush Authorized Domestic Spying,” Dan Eggen, Dec. 16, 2005).

On what basis? That’s classified.

And Bamford reports that shady companies with ties to Israel are wiretapping Americans for the NSA:

One of the [National Security] agency’s biggest secrets is just how careless it is with that ocean of very private and very personal communications, much of it to and from Americans. Increasingly, obscure and questionable contractors — not government employees — install the taps, run the agency’s eavesdropping infrastructure, and do the listening and analysis.


And with some of the key companies building the U.S.’s surveillance infrastructure for the digital age employing unstable employees, crooked executives, and having troubling ties to foreign intelligence services, it’s not clear that Americans should trust the secretive agency ….




Secretive contractors with questionable histories and little oversight were also used to do the actual bugging of the entire U.S. telecommunications network.

According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint, owned by Comverse Technology, taps the communication lines at Verizon, which I first reported in my book The Shadow Factory in 2008. Verint did not return a call seeking comment, while Verizon said it does not comment on such matters.

At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are powered by software and hardware from Narus, now owned by Boeing, a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004. Narus did not return a call seeking comment.

What is especially troubling is that both companies have had extensive ties to Israel, as well as links to that country’s intelligence service, a country with a long and aggressive history of spying on the U.S.

In fact, according to Binney, the advanced analytical and data mining software the NSA had developed for both its worldwide and international eavesdropping operations was secretly passed to Israel by a mid-level employee, apparently with close connections to the country. The employee, a technical director in the Operations Directorate, “who was a very strong supporter of Israel,” said Binney, “gave, unbeknownst to us, he gave the software that we had, doing these fast rates, to the Israelis.”

Because of his position, it was something Binney should have been alerted to, but wasn’t.


“In addition to being the technical director,” he said, “I was the chair of the TAP, it’s the Technical Advisory Panel, the foreign relations council. We’re supposed to know what all these foreign countries, technically what they’re doing…. They didn’t do this that way, it was under the table.” After discovering the secret transfer of the technology, Binney argued that the agency simply pass it to them officially, and in that way get something in return, such as access to communications terminals. “So we gave it to them for switches,” he said.

“For access.”

But Binney now suspects that Israeli intelligence in turn passed the technology on to Israeli companies who operate in countries around the world, including the U.S. In return, the companies could act as extensions of Israeli intelligence and pass critical military, economic and diplomatic information back to them. “And then five years later, four or five years later, you see a Narus device,” he said. “I think there’s a connection there, we don’t know for sure.”

Narus was formed in Israel in November 1997 by six Israelis with much of its money coming from Walden Israel, an Israeli venture capital company. Its founder and
former chairman, Ori Cohen, once told Israel’s Fortune Magazine that his partners have done technology work for Israeli intelligence. And among the five founders was Stanislav Khirman, a husky, bearded Russian who had previously worked for Elta Systems, Inc. A division of Israel Aerospace Industries, Ltd., Elta specializes in developing advanced eavesdropping systems for Israeli defense and intelligence organizations. At Narus, Khirman became the chief technology officer.

A few years ago, Narus boasted that it is “known for its ability to capture and collect data from the largest networks around the world.”

The company says its equipment is capable of “providing unparalleled monitoring and intercept capabilities to service providers and government organizations around the world” and that “Anything that comes through [an Internet protocol network], we can  record. We can reconstruct all of their e-mails, along with attachments, see what Web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their [Voice over Internet Protocol] calls.”

Like Narus, Verint was founded by in Israel by Israelis, including Jacob “Kobi” Alexander, a former Israeli intelligence officer. Some 800 employees work for Verint, including 350 who are based in Israel, primarily working in research and development and operations, according to the Jerusalem Post. Among its products is STAR-GATE, which according to the company’s sales literature, lets “service providers … access communications on virtually any type of network, retain  communication data for as long as required, and query and deliver content and data …” and was  “[d]esigned to manage vast numbers of targets, concurrent sessions, call data records, and communications.”

In a rare and candid admission to Forbes, Retired Brig. Gen. Hanan Gefen, a former commander of the highly secret Unit 8200, Israel’s NSA, noted his former organization’s influence on Comverse, which owns Verint, as well as other Israeli companies that dominate the U.S. eavesdropping and surveillance market. “Take NICE, Comverse and Check Point for example, three of the largest high-tech companies, which were all directly influenced by 8200 technology,” said Gefen. “Check Point was founded by Unit alumni.  Comverse’s main product, the Logger, is based on the Unit’s technology.”


According to a former chief of Unit 8200, both the veterans of the group and much of the high-tech intelligence equipment they developed are now employed in high-tech firms around the world. “Cautious estimates indicate that in the past few years,” he told a reporter for the Israeli newspaper Ha’artez  in 2000, “Unit 8200 veterans have set up some 30 to 40 high-tech companies, including 5 to 10 that were floated on Wall Street.” Referred to only as “Brigadier General B,” he added, “This correlation between serving in the intelligence Unit 8200 and starting successful high-tech companies is not coincidental: Many of the technologies in use around the world and developed in Israel were originally military technologies and were developed and improved by Unit veterans.”

Equally troubling is the issue of corruption. Kobi Alexander, the founder and former chairman of Verint, is now a fugitive, wanted by the FBI on nearly three dozen charges of fraud, theft, lying, bribery, money laundering and other crimes. And two of his top associates at Comverse, Chief Financial Officer David Kreinberg and former General Counsel William F. Sorin, were also indicted in the scheme and later pleaded guilty, with both serving time in prison and paying millions of dollars in fines and penalties.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

Okay, if it's so simple, here are some simple questions:

1) what happens to the thousands of nuclear weapons in existence.  Do you get to decide who controls them?   If your answer is that the military will still exist, under whose authority? Who pays for the military?  Who pays to replenish equipment?  Who decides who is in charge?  The military itself?  Ooops, you just bought a military dictatorship.

2) what does a well armed civilian force do against modern weapons like stealth bombers and drones?  Most of the countries we've invaded in the last few decades had tons of small arms and even lesser tanks and missiles.  We destroyed them in short order with high tech weapons.  I'll bet you don't have a steath bomber in your basement.   You can't put that genie back in the bottle. The technology exists and someone is going to control it.  Is the military (assuming you think the military still has a role) going to become the domestic police to protect you from internal and external warlords with stealth bombers?

3) who funds the courts if there is a civil dispute?   Do you still have courts?

4) who decides the rules that apply to courts?  How are elections held if there is no government to hold them?  Who decides if the elections of judges were fair?

5) assuming you agree courts are necessary, what if you have a corrupt judge?  What will stop judges -- who have more authority than anyone else now that government is gone -- from becoming extremely powerful?

6) if the police are still around, who funds them?  What do you do with corrupt police?  What if a whole police force becomes corrupt because they are the ultimate power and there is no government entity overseeing them?  Do you go to the military (assuming one exists in your world)?

I could come up with 20 more off the top of my head.  Answers?  I am open minded.  I think our system is horribly corrupted but I see the no-government cure as worse than the corrupted government disease.  Convince me.

LowProfile's picture

(deleted, ZH needs a "delete comment" button...)

CH1's picture

Fast answers in italics:

1) what happens to the thousands of nuclear weapons in existence?

They rot in their silos, for the most part. (Nukes without maintenance won't work after a while.) And, remember - I never promised perfection - only states do that. (Why anyone believes them is another question.)

2) what does a well armed civilian force do against modern weapons like stealth bombers and drones?

Shoot their operators at home, at the end of the day.

3) who funds the courts if there is a civil dispute?  

The litigants.

3b) Do you still have courts?

Whoever wants them can have them.

4) who decides the rules that apply to courts?  

The judge. (This has been done forever, just look at international arbitration.)

5) assuming you agree courts are necessary, what if you have a corrupt judge?  What will stop judges -- who have more authority than anyone else now that government is gone -- from becoming extremely powerful?

What stops them now?

In my world, they are employed, not appointed. Problem solved.

6) if the police are still around, who funds them?

Whoever wants their services. (Things get a LOT more affordable when half your income isn't stolen every week.) 

What do you do with corrupt police?  

Fire them.

What if a whole police force becomes corrupt because they are the ultimate power and there is no government entity overseeing them?  

And no one funding them either! No monopoly on the use of force. (Amazing that anyone thought that was a good idea.)

Do you go to the military (assuming one exists in your world)?

No, you and your neighbors have the balls to shoot them, then justify your actions to everyone else. (In the rare necessity.)

All of these objections - and all the myriad forms of them - have been answered many times over decades. It's just that such discussions are forbidden in public.


LetThemEatRand's picture

The nukes will just be left in their silos?  No one will come take them and use them to gain power?  And the police force is private, meaning the richest get to have police and everyone else is screwed?   Same with judges?   And none of the big companies that make stealth bombers and become your self-appointed ruler will keep their hired pilots safe from you? The bottom line for all of your answers is that personal wealth and biggest gun force replaces elected force.  Some paradise.  

LowProfile's picture


The nukes will just be left in their silos? No one will come take them and use them to gain power? And the police force is private, meaning the richest get to have police and everyone else is screwed? Same with judges? And none of the big companies that make stealth bombers and become your self-appointed ruler will keep their hired pilots safe from you? The bottom line for all of your answers is that personal wealth and biggest gun force replaces elected force. Some paradise.


Just for argument's sake:  Let's say we live in a county that has one of these nukes in a silo, and the goobermint collapses, leaving it unattended.

I personally would form a posse to secure said nuke, and find an appropriately knowledgeable fellow to permanently disable it.  Failing that, or I would scuttle the silo with explosives so as to make it impractical to retrieve it.


With regards to the police force, where I would live the local town council would be doing the hiring and firing.  If some rich fat cat wanted to hire his own police force, that's none of my business.  Same with judges.  I would suggest you investigated "government by contract".


And as far as paradise is concerned, nobody but you seems to be bringing that up.  Glad to see you're keeping your straw man beating skills in top form.

malek's picture

Maybe it would be easier for YOU to explain to us, exactly what type of central control and opression scheme is still not allowed as of your mindset, even with the existence of nukes?

(Oh, and a free hint for you: biological weapons serve much better as ultimate justifications for complete opression, as their effect is not limited to the site of release.)

CH1's picture

And the Hobbesian thought-circle continues.

Ah well.

flattrader's picture

I prefer to think of it more as a circle jerk...but, I am feeling particlarly perverted today.

bomb building government C4 plane overthrow assasination end the fed stay in bed happy earth day fuck the nsa

Elect Mr. Robinson for a Better World

LowProfile's picture



2) what does a well armed civilian force do against modern weapons like stealth bombers and drones?  Most of the countries we've invaded in the last few decades had tons of small arms and even lesser tanks and missiles.  We destroyed them in short order with high tech weapons.

Oh, you mean like AFGHANISTAN?!?!?

You are a perfect fuckwit.

malek's picture

No, we will have no courts, no schools, no water supply system and so on, because anarchists don't believe in anything of those <facepalm>

and on 5)
"No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, [...] or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land."


Amagnonx's picture

How do you propose to get any such thing through your bought and paid for congress?  You are far too late for a policial solution - the eavsedropping computers need to be blown up, and the entire nation needs to arm itself against the oppressors you call government.


If you - anyone of you, would go and destroy this evil machinery - you would be justified and supported by the majority of your nation.

Kimo's picture

"2) undo Citizens United, and ban organized lobbying by corporations and industry groups, and prohibiting lobbying in any form by former politicians;"

Exactly how to you word something like that without affecting Freedom of Speach?

Mary Wilbur's picture

Work on your spelling.

Kimo's picture

For you, honey, anyting!

LetThemEatRand's picture

It would be a challenge, but the articulated right of Freedom of Speech is itself an amendment to the constitution (the First, of course).   How about:  "Corporations and other non-individuals shall not contribute to politicial campaigns or causes, nor shall they lobby by themselves or through proxy for specific legislation, nor shall they advertise or pay for mass media advertising of anything but their goods and services to the public."   And "As part of the oath of office of any national officer holder, shall be included an oath that he or she shall not in the future use his connections or influence derived from holding office to affect future legislation upon his or her departure from office."   The reason we have a Red Team and Blue Team that both represent the same corporate interests is money.  The only way to get politicians who actually give a shit about the average guy is to level the playing field with the large money interests.  I'm not suggesting the language above is perfect, but it could be done in a reasonable way if we put our minds to it.  These and other things are worth doing not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

Freedom of speech is meaningless in a country that hasn't freedom of thought. All that is left is Freedom of Talk which every single pundit has abused to the point of nausea re-enforced by endless television journalism.

AnAnonymous's picture

Freedom of Talk

Freedom of talk is a good name.

i-dog's picture

That certainly explains your 350 posts on this blog alone in just one month! ... Most of them consisting entirely of gratuitous insults or trite comments like the above!

You've got too much time on your hands....

GeneMarchbanks's picture

What I have is a job way below my intellectual capacity unlike yourself.

i-dog's picture

True ... I don't have a "job". I'm just paid to think and advise.

Obviously, your employer has a far better grasp of your intellectual capacity than you do.

Amagnonx's picture

Corporations are NOT persons, despite the legal BS that they try and make people believe.  So they don't qualify for free speech - get corporations designated as legal fictions again, which is what they are - not persons - and the problem goes away.

Kimo's picture


"Corporations are NOT persons".  Agreed, and coporations don't give speeches.  But their money finds its way into the pockets of politicians.  Laws won't change that.  Better to limit their size, and consequently, their coffers.


LetThemEatRand's picture

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court -- currently containing 5 self-described "original intent" conservative members -- thinks that corporations are people because they are organizations made up of people.   Thus, the need to Amend.

Kimo's picture

What about an entirely different approach.  Limit the size of corporations, etc..

CH1's picture

What about an entirely different approach.

Okay, how about walking away from the state and their vile circus?

Ghordius's picture

you can try, but you have to keep the explorers from planting their flags on your front-yard

i-dog's picture


"keep the explorers from planting their flags on your front-yard"

Is that what you're afraid of? ... That if a single freedom-loving state, like Iceland or Texas, were to dismantle their central government, then Obomber (OK, bad example!) ... errr, Putin ... would immediately send an army of occupation to build another one for them?

Do you not think that Iceland or Texas are capable of building a mutual trade and defence alliance with, say, China, or the non-aligned movement, to discourage such acts? Do you not think that 25 million armed and angry Texans would not resist such an invasion? Do you seriously think that other nations would appreciate Obomber, or Putin, nuking Texas into a radioactive wasteland "to restore democracy" (after the people voted to secede)? Do you not think it possible that other states might refuse to have anything further to do with such an invader or blatant lunatic? We need to send you to a diplomacy school!!

We are no longer living in the age of sending a few gunboats offshore from a bunch of natives, dressed in grass skirts and armed only with sharpened mango cores, to impose the will of a megalomaniac monarch! The world is now "full" (no more terra nullius to homestead) and even a few Somalis can keep central government at bay.

The lack of imagination in the average statist, to find creative alternative solutions to very simple problems, is quite disconcerting!!

Ghordius's picture

i-dog, why average statist? Or, at least, why average? I definitely resent "average"! ;-)

You write yourself "Do you not think that Iceland or Texas are capable of building ... to discourage such acts?". All I wanted is to quip something on the line "you'd better be prepared well to any reactions", or "choose your revolutions/devolutions/independence movement wisely", or "think ahead what then happenz". In the hypotetical case of Texas, what do you do if other States want to join you, for example? This kind of things can degenerate very, very quickly.

A dear older relative of mine used to quip: every nation has an army, either it's own or a foreign one. Somalia? It has something like warlords (a primitive sort of gov+army), and some of them sponsor pirates (who are capitalist entrepreneurs, too), or am I wrong?

i-dog's picture


"I definitely resent "average"! ;-)"

As well you should, my man! Please take 'average' in that sentence as in the sense of 'representative of' rather than 'lacking specialness'. You are far cleverer than the 'average bear' in building strawmen. ;-)

Somalia? It indeed has warlords and a couple of religions tussling to regain control over a hapless but enterprising people struggling for subsistence ... in parallel with the Italian mafia profitably dumping the toxic waste from European power plants into their undefended (except by "pirates" - a disparaging statist word for a free enterprise navy) waters! ... yet, no single hegemon has been able to regain control over a people that now enjoy a higher standard of living and more peaceful daily life than any of their statist neighbours!! Small mercies are still mercies, neh?

But Somalis are neither Texans nor Vikings ... they are 'brown people' (ie. looked down upon by those who should be helping them to determine their own destiny) and have neither the education nor the natural resources in their patch of dirt to mount a serious challenge to the Anglo-Amerikan Korporation.

Anyway, I'm quietly confident that we few, we happy few, who have already woken up to the sheer futility of waiting for a government to "fix" anything (other than their own retirement benefits and some monopolies for their friends!) will, après le déluge, foster a different kind of enlightenment, which will be the complete opposite of what the NWO plans. Humans will eventually begin to use their brains rather than their brawn ... and Luciferians actually shun the [lime]light.

Peace, brother.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

He's not afraid of anything, he just understands that these things end up closer to Yugoslavia than 300k Scandinavians on a rock in the North Atlantic resisting debt peonage.

I certainly won't cheer against you but you're signing your own death warrant in my opinion. You have an imaginative conception of armed conflict coupled with a strange hypocrisy regarding all things civic.

i-dog's picture


"He's not afraid of anything"

Interesting that you know this ... Do you sit together in the seminary "defending the faith"? (Ghordius is a Jesuit ... are you also one?).

Anyway, back on topic: Yugoslavia is sooo last century! That's alte-politik ... We need a new paradigm to replace the failed 'Luciferian world domination under the jackboot of the Anglo-American Korporation' paradigm. My grandchildren, and your future spawn (perish the thought!), deserve something better than plans hatched in the 19th century to carry them through the 21st and 22nd centuries.

But you can remain rooted in the past while I strive forward against the windmill....

Ghordius's picture

relax, i-dog, I went to a Jesuit school, but so did Fidel Castro and many, many others

RichardP's picture

I went to Business School with a Jesuit once.  He constantly ate tofu sandwiches, and was blonde.  That must mean something, musn't it??

GeneMarchbanks's picture

'(Ghordius is a Jesuit ... are you also one?).'

You live in a world of labels. There is something Apocalyptic about your posts, you seem ready to fight wars over simple words.

Don't pretend to care about your grandchildren. Hiding behind setting the future right is a sad attempt for redemption. You have no monopoly on the future, leave it alone before you get hurt.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I like that idea too.  Corporations are a creature of law.  There is absolutely no reason they cannot be modified in a multitude of way to limit their power.  But we'll never get there with our current political system.  Corporations are instrumental in getting most politicians elected.  They don't like someone (like Ron Paul), and he/she doesn't stand a chance.  Politicians who reach office through corporate money and influence will not bite the hand that feeds them.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

'Corporations are a creature of law.'

In fact they are the opposite. They are a chameleon-like entity that operate best in shadowy obscurantism. Edwin Black's work demonstrates this very clearly.

i-dog's picture

What absolute cliched nonsense you dribble!! Once again you show your complete lack of understanding of both history and reality!

The limited liability corporation exists only through the protection of royal charters or government-granted limited liability. They are an artificial construct that cannot exist without the guns of government to protect them.

The multinational corporation exists only through exploiting arbitrage between the laws of different governments ... or will be protected under a one world government!

Your very own Catholic church is the world's oldest and most pernicious multinational corporation ... that was granted a monopoly by the monarchs and their replacement governments in many countries over the centuries, then created its very own 'country' to consolidate the profits!

Without governments or monarchs to protect them and shield them from competition, the owners of corporations would be personally liable for any losses incurred or harm they created.

Get a clue!!

AnAnonymous's picture

The limited liability corporation exists only through the protection of royal charters or government-granted limited liability. They are an artificial construct that cannot exist without the guns of government to protect them.


They could not hire their own muscles in absence of a state...

Corporations are an emanation of middle class societies.

As US citizens places middle class as the king class...

Ghordius's picture

this is correct. and the "emanation" has gained an own life

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


this is correct. and the "emanation" has gained an own life

It has blobbed up.


GeneMarchbanks's picture

Jesus! Now you are starting to make sense to me!! This can't be good. Next thing you know I'll be +1ing Brusca.

Ghordius's picture

I think this has all merit - bravo i-dog for remembering that the limited charter of corporations was born as a special sovereign grant. So yes, it depends from the power of the state. Idem for the exploitation of arbitrage of multinationals.

On this, you are with me and on the same page as Adam Smith - he was also skeptical about the concept of "limited liability" company.

My "very own" Catholic Church's "charter" is derived by the Sovereign State of the Vatican and used to have extraterritorial rights on many lands until the French Revolution's leaders and the Protestant Sovereigns confiscated and repealed most of it. What it's now there is the remnant of a remnant of the "splendor" that still irks some. So it's much more a foreign state than a corporation.

I don't agree with the "created it's very own country" narrative - in the middle ages it was a country/nation already before it started the "pernicious effects". Most of the grants go back to Charlemagne and were related to the support in vanquishing and converting the Saxons. Oh, and a few diplomatic cheats, of course.

i-dog's picture


"What it's now there is the remnant of a remnant of the "splendor""

Ahhh, Ghordius ... you're too modest!! (Unless you do, indeed, have access to the books of the 'Institute for Works' plus the valuations of all the temples and palaces held around the globe...all built on free land granted by hundreds of monarchs and governments). Even Rothschild would be jealous!

"I don't agree with the "created it's very own country" narrative"

That's just my descriptive phrase for the Città del Vaticano, carved out of Italy by Pius XI, and its 830 residents ... plus, of course, the sister tax-free haven of the City of London and the Jesuit-controlled Washington, DC (formerly known as Rome on the Potomac, until Freemason George Washington appointed Jesuit Pierre L'Enfant to draft an "interesting" city plan for a new metropolis and seat of imperial power).

Ghordius's picture

look, I had Italian relatives that were still miffed about the Italian Reunification and how it took away 99% of the Vatican State. Blamed Napoleon III and the Emperor in Vienna too, they promised to protect and failed. And they also blamed Mussolini (who they usually otherwise adored) for the Lateran Agreements that settled the claims to the City of the Vatican only.

But the power of the Pontiff to send fleets and armies is gone. If not, my own family would have some lands and palaces to get back. All legally previously confiscated from enemies of the Church, according to my own family's archives. Yes, some little influence is there, but vastly overrated.

The City of London - as you know - it's a completely different story. That's a corporative city in the medieval sense. With it's own charter and a "Minder" of the City's prerogatives in Parliament.

And George Washington wanted someone that would make the his capital look grand - it makes sense he took an expert in making things look better than what they are. This reminds me of the current PM of Italy, a communist president seems to think you need a thief to catch thieves or something.

And Freemason were/are very critical of the CC - hell, nearly enemies.

i-dog's picture

My dear Ghordie: Please don't fall into the strawman building ways of Herr Marchbanks! It's annoying to have to blow them down....

The Papal States were a long time ago and not relevant to our current discussion of the Sovereign State that is Vatican City (and the quite separate Sovereign Military Order of Malta, that also holds a seat in the UN).

"The power of the Pontiff to send fleets and armies" is not gone, it has just been hidden in the power structure behind the "Crime Capitol" of the world. We've discussed this before, so please don't ask me to list them all ... or I will. ;-)

The City of London - as I know - is a very related story, but was only thrown in as an aside.

Just as you have attempted in the past to discuss the hundreds of thousands of humanitarian volunteers working for the Hospitaller Order of St. John to deflect discussion from the few thousand sworn Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta, please don't insult my intelligence (and yours) by doing the same through equating the hundreds of thousands of good, and unwitting, souls in the lower 3 levels of Freemasonry with the few thousand Masons of the higher degrees, which included Grand Master Washington.

"And Freemason were/are very critical of the CC - hell, nearly enemies."

That is a very sad and disingenuous cliche in the context that we are discussing. You can do better than that, Ghordie.

Ghordius's picture

It's very difficult to do better (for me) in this format that favours short quips, I'm used to longer discussions.

I think this might be conciliatory: We had a very interesting discussion about sovereigns and their sponsored/dependent corporations. I'd go in the sense that the owner is responsible/liable for the dogs and should keep them on a short leash. There we agree somewhat?

The Vatican State is a very small owner with lots and lots of "dogs", some good, some bad, some in other owner's yards, mostly without any leash at all, as for today's standards. Under this view, the Vatican fails to be responsible about them. And some of them are corrupted in the inside.

Take the Knights of Columbus, for example. I'd love to see them audited, or to keep in hyperbolic theme, I'd love to get a papal bull giving me the authority of having a little Columbus Inquisition (music here) and have them go the way of the Templars.

The Knights of Malta? I know the org and some of them quite well, I have little qualms about them. Don't give them warships, though!!!  ;-).

The Jesuits? Well, as an organization they have had even Popes ordering their troops to bombard Jesuit ships so that they could not land. Complex organization with many, many undercurrents. Even the Swiss banned them for a while. A few friends there that endlessly rant about other Jesuits.

The various financial organizations? Depends. Depends a lot.

Freemasons? I believe some half dozen Popes have condemned this kind of secretive free-thinking association - perhaps jealous? I also know a few, and I am not aware of any well-standing within the RCC (which as, in total, some 800m members, last time I looked). Yes, I can imagine that a few have grand plans.

But the whole shebang a comprehensive and hidden plan? Try this at home with 300m Americans first, you'll see how far you get.

This my platonic container construct: sovereign -> organization -> cabal inside org. For me, a question of corruption.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

Too lazy to read the link, but that makes sense. Any influence that is left is continental, NOT in the Anglosphere, and if I'm wrong it's minuscule enough to ignore in my opinion.

CoL, Ireland, Caymans is a different story.

Ghordius's picture

This would be a better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification

Sordid tale of godless stealing of holy prerogatives ;-)