C) They never mention the financial oligarch masters who have their minions throughout senior intelligence positions, as well as the leadership of BOTH political parties.
Theorize much?
Yes, but I've also found some key things that have happened in history that are simple facts, and the facts make our fake US history obvious. These facts, however, are uncomfortable for Republican lackeys, so they will never discuss things like the Dulles brothers, Sullivan and Cromwell, CIA operations at Rockefeller Center during WWII, etc. They live in a fairyland where American financial dynasties are blissfully disconnected from the CIA leadership, and the major philanthropic foundations and international organizations are exactly what their thin veneer of PR says they are. After seeing enough movies, I guess even Congressional testimony is seen as a conspiracy theory.
If you'd like a real "conspiracy theory", I mean, it's "way out there", you'll love it it's so funny, just find a copy of this online:
Joint Hearing
Before the
Select Committee on Intelligence
and the
Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research
of the
Committee on Human Resources United States Senate
Ninety-fifth Congress
First Session
August 3, 1977
It's funny stuff, hilarious. You won't be able to discern what's behind it without some other documents, but just for the humor value it makes good reading.
Yep, all of FR fell right into the trap /sarc
Not everyone at FR agrees with NSA domestic spying, and not everyone at FR thinks that Snowden is any more significant than William Binney. And of course, the anti-Snowdenites religiously refuse to speak of William Binney. Because he released a ton more than Snowden did and was a 30-year veteran, high-level NSA employee. Republican lackeys just keep screaming, screaming, screaming, pitchforks in hand, Snowden ! Snowden ! Snowden ! Snowden ! Snowden ! It's like North Korea trains our Republican operatives. Keep chanting and smiling ! Go, go, go, yeeeaaaaa Republicans ! Woo-hoo !!!! Let's spam social media with kiw da wabbit, I mean, Snowden !
The catch is that the all-powerful oligarchy will have anticipated your pathetic attempts to out them and immediately crush you like a bug. Maybe ignore you. Or use any one of 1000 techniques to discredit you; one of the main ones being the planting of information in your name or associated with you that makes you look like a lunatic.
That's exactly why everyone should read for themselves and sort out what comes from source documents (like contemporaneous printed news articles, Congressional testimony, corporate filings, etc.) and what doesn't - because the writings of researchers usually have a lot of guesses or outright disinformation in them, mixed in with references to original sources.
Without certain information, talk of large financial conspiracy seems ludicrous, it did to me until not long ago when I came across various pieces of information.
A good starting point to get a handle on where we are today with study of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody; of course, that's only a Wikipedia article, one would want to dig for a lot more information on him. While researching, keep in mind to seek the truth, be skeptical of everything, and dig until you find out what was really going on. One needs to have a basic but firm understanding of business finance, i.e., balance sheets, income statement, risk, bankruptcy law, banking and finance, etc., otherwise one will never see the truth. You will come across all sorts of crazy info that's wacky, way off; just filter it and keep gathering what basic, simple facts you can. Eventually a picture will start to develop.
Antony Sutton's works are essential to get a quick overview of some basic facts that don't add up in our public-school-taught fantasy history.
Google provided me with: "Few Americans know that J.P. Morgan Company began as George Peabody and Company." The article is about Riggs who brought Peabody into the London banking scene. Lots of fun facts about international banking, and the old boy network which could also be called a "financial conspiracy".
They [Republican lackeys] live in a fairyland where American financial dynasties are blissfully disconnected from the CIA leadership, and the major philanthropic foundations and international organizations are exactly what their thin veneer of PR says they are.
Can't really argue with that. I would expect the CIA to need money to pay for operations some of which are designed to produce more money. The philanthropies seem mostly liberal to me, but that's probably because liberals believe in the growth of government which means more money for the CIA.
I'm not sure this tells me anything I didn't already know or suspect.