The previous blog “Capitalizing China” can be condensed into the following simple facts:
1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.
2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.
3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!
4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.
5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.
6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.
7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.
8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.
9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.
10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.
11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.
12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.
13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.
14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.
15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.
16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.
It’s like this:
The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!
The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.
THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!
THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.
AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!
But the bottom line is this: Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces.
ASIA TIMES 2003 THEY ARE ADVISED WHEN IT’S COMING AND WHERE TO INVEST
I rarely say this but I have said it before I admit on one or two occasions (because they have been) but this is one of the most important blogs I have ever written and I hope you read every last damned word of it and take it in….slowly. PLEASE share this widely and get LAZY people to READ IT!
This is how America, the UK and the West is getting slaughtered. NOT by the chinese but by our own. Your enemy lies at home America! Deep in the heart of Texas and Washington. And in the UK, deep in the heart of the City of London.
You don’t need an army to take over a country. You can do it perfectly well with a fictional idea. Two words: “Legal” and “Person” that’s it. Literally. Nothing more is required.
You think this is outrageous and ridiculous don’t you? Well you carry on believing. No skin off my nose.
The Globalists have commenced their take over control of China in 1979 and, as you will see here – as simply as I can make it – they did it with those two words: LEGAL PERSON. China accepted those two words and hey presto! The entire world and every soul in it is a market and an economic unit to be parasited from.
“I’ll ruin everything you are…
I’ll give you legal person…”
I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes
My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world
You are aware of the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES Ltd Private Company I assume? Wholly owned subsidiary of a PUBLIC company (so they tell us the B of E is a Public company that is) but the subsidiary is a PRIVATE offshoot. Why PRIVATE? Well, it does not come under the FOI Act does it? Just like Icke’s “The PEOPLE’S Voice” Private Limited Company funded by you. Anyhow, don’t let me go off on the Icke tangent again.
What has been in our news this last week or so?
The Bank of England has just made history (which means nothing to most people) and signed an agreement with the Chinese Central Bank to have the City of London as a clearing house for the RMB.
The City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business was launched on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:
Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London
Advise HM Treasury on maximising London’s capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.
The City of London Representative offices in China.
The overall aim of the offices in Beijing and Shanghai is to strengthen trade and investment links in both directions between China and the UK through the promotion of world-class financial services and products. The offices work to promote ‘the City’ as a brand, covering financial services as a whole (including those under non-UK ownership) throughout the UK. The offices work to promote the services of the City – including the raising of capital, insurance, asset management, legal, accounting and other advisory services; emissions trading; London’s exchanges; and financial education, training and qualifications – to the government and private sector in China and promote awareness of the City as both a unique cluster of capital and expertise and a centre in which to locate operations.
The specific functions of the offices are to:
facilitate the business development of City firms by providing support for their visits to China;
support visits by Chinese decision-makers and senior financial services practitioners to the UK;
gain and disseminate information on market opportunities for City firms;
identify barriers to market access for financial and related business services; [These barriers to market are legal issues]
promote the UK as a physical location for representation and investment by Chinese financial services companies and provide support for inward investors;
organise visits by the City of London’s Policy Chairman and assist in planning and arranging visits by the Lord Mayor;
organise and support financial services related events and seminars.
Members of the City of London initiative:
Current members of the initiative are leading international banks with a strong presence in London and Hong Kong:
Agricultural Bank of China (UK)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
Bank of China (UK)
Bank of Communications (UK)
China Construction Bank (UK)
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
The Royal Bank of Scotland
HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are observers to the initiative. The City of London provides the secretariat.
Interestingly, this is taken from the 2012 Annual Report of the People’s Bank of China (China’s Central Bank):
“The PBC signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks and monetary authorities in 18 countries and regions including Republic of Korea and Malaysia. Offshore RMB markets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, London and Singapore were in a good shape.”
So, Malaysia got in there before us.
Further, within this annual report, it states the following (there are many references to the “legal person” in fact). The way they refer to it, you can see, quite clearly, it is something new to them and they are struggling with it:
The PBC achieved significant results in statistics, survey and analytical work
“Statistics and monitoring of small rural financial insti中国人民银行年报–排版（英文）.inddtutions based on legal person was achieved.
Ok. Now, for the moment, let’s just flip back to the Bank of England Nominees….
Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited
The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity….
Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)
They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.
If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.
The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned
The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:
As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)
Let’s look at that statement closely however because the Bank Of England Act 1946 doesn’t quite match up to what this statement by the Bank says:
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998
1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury
- (1) On the appointed day –(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury;(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).
- (2) The Government stock shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum; and
the equivalent amount of Government stock shall, in relation to any person, be taken to be such that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon is equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock of which that person was the registered holder immediately before the appointed day.
So, all the stock in the Bank was transferred to the treasury/government BUT, on that transfer, the treasury contracted to the previous private owners of the stock in the Bank, an EQUIVALENT amount of stock in the British government! So, the Bank is owned by the government BUT the government is owned by the previous stockholders in the bank by an amount equivalent to their stockholding in the bank. FURTHER, in holding this government stock, the previous bank stockholders shall receive interest at the rate of 3% per annum IN PERPETUITY (there is no end date stated). So, in essence, it is a stock swap and nothing, in effect, has changed.
(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]
So, ONLY 50% (assuming they are stating 25% on each date rather than a total of 25%) of net profits – so after ALL costs are accounted for – goes to the Treasury. WHERE does the other 50% go?
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 19984 Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Now, if we go to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and follow this through, we get the following:
16(4) The enactments and Order mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
So then we go to schedule 2 and what do we find?
(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to defence or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section “defence” means—
(a)the size, shape, organisation, logistics, order of battle, deployment, operations, state of readiness and training of the armed forces of the Crown;
(b)the weapons, stores or other equipment of those forces and the invention, development, production and operation of such equipment and research relating to it;
(c)defence policy and strategy and military planning and intelligence;
(d)plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war.
Read them each in turn carefully and decide which, if any, something within the Bank of England Act 1946 could have anything related to such. Essentially, then, it means that the paragraphs repealed by the Official Secrets Act within the Bank of England Act 1946, relate to matters of defence. That “defence of the realm” can ONLY be related to those documents which give detail as to WHO these bankers are who own this stock. “obstructs the promotion or protection…of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad…” (which citizens precisely?). Couple that with paragraph (c).
What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?
The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states. (the ordinary share value has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the shareholdings it deals in for third party private persons – corporate or natural persons)
A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:
BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4) (The Directors and shareholders of such shares have nothing to do with the value of shares the nominees deals in)
Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website. (so what? Uninterested.)
What is the Purpose of BOEN?
As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others. (Now we’re getting somewhere. Could be Her Heinous to his Holiness, to Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, DuPont, Bill and Melinda Gates, President Assad, any and all Heads of state no matter what they are. Dictators or not. And let’s face it, they ALL are).
HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W
Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England (which means it does not have to disclose the beneficial interest holders of shares). Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (haha. That is absolutely fucking hilarious! A shareholder who wants no control and no say) (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W
Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.
BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions
It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) makes clear. (But it no longer matters since it is now dormant! They have taken the money and run and they have closed down all their accounts and put their interests elsewhere, while that just so happens to have happened before June 2010 – not long, then after the economic collapse! Nice timing!)
This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.
Bank of England
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]
Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.
The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)
As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.
That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.
Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.
In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.
Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.
The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.
Purchase back issues of Alistair McConnachie’s Prosperity money reform journal here
And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie’s Google Profile.
(1) Bank of England Act 1946, http://www.legislation.gov.uk
(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,
(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,
(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at
(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,
(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,
(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,
(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,
Now, there are quite a number of other “Nominees” companies scattered all over the place. ONE is called “Houblon Nominees” and another is “Bank of Scotland Branch Nominees”. It’s strange for all of them that, although “Live” and still have their Directors listed, each one is “dormant” or “non trading”. Isn’t that just a tad strange? 😉
There is one “Nominees” I am coming to shortly, however, which you will see has MASSIVE investments. But, for now, let’s just take a little peek at our Dear, lovely, fluffy Queen who is “so close to bankruptcy” while she ensures that the monarchy is now fully protected from any investigation via the Freedom of Information Act or any other method/vehicle.
From: In and Out of Hollywood: A Biographer’s Memoir (2009)
By Charles Higham
You may wish to look up Higham himself. His wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Higham_(biographer) Why is it all these people same to share so many of the same perversions and issues? However, this is what he wrote in his own autobiography/memoir:
Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:
Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
POSTED BY NESARAAUSTRALIA ⋅ JULY 15, 2012 ⋅
FILED UNDER BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, MEDIA
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 446,984,331 17.46
2 J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED 371,451,021 14.51
3 NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 343,611,753 13.42
4 CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 98,249,488 3.84
Top 4 Commonwealth BA Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 210,455,886 13.59
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 154,853,734 10.00
3 National Nominees Limited 136,450,456 8.81
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 66,664,831 4.30
Top 4 National Australia B Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees 359,630,439 16.86
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 260,185,567 12.20
3 National Nominees Limited 244,446,877 11.46
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 97,543,050 4.57
Top 4 Westpac BC Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Fully Paid Ordinary Shares % Held
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 444,695,642 14.88
2 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 379,805,564 12.71
3 National Nominees Limited 312,929,618 10.47
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 143,271,824 4.79
What an EYE OPENER. Still more. Who are these 4 private entities so secretly powerful? Many would think HSBC belongs to the Asians. Yet, have a look at what Wikipedia has to say.
HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC
In fact, they’re the number one shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
12.09% of Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and 17.00% of Bank of Queensland.
Wikipedia had this to say about them,
“HSBC Holdings plc is a global financial services company headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom. As of 2010 it is the world’s sixth-largest banking and financial services group and eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. It has around 8,000 offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc (accessed 21 Feb 2011).
Here is a link to their 2010 Annual Report. Here are a few of the financial Highlights listed in that report:
Pre-tax profit more than doubled to US$19bn on a reported basis.
Underlying pre-tax profit up by almost US$5bn or 36% to US$18.4bn.
Profitable in every customer group and region, including North America
Their 2009 Annual Report wasn’t too shabby either. It says that, on a reported basis, their profit before tax was US$7.1 billion
OKAY, what about the other 3 private entities deemed so secretly powerful? Let’s see.
JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
14.51% of ANZ 10.00% of CBA 12.20% of NAB 12.71% of WBC
In fact, they’re also the number two shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
7.92% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 7.77% of Bank of Queensland.
JPMorgan Chase had a $12 billion profit for 2009. We found this out and read all about their success in their Annual Report.
National Nominees Limited
National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited – You know the BANK that just staged a HUGE break-up. It must be an awkward break-up indeed with all of those shared assets. We think you should give them a spank purely for staging such a pathetic break-up!
13.42% of ANZ 8.81% of CBA 11.46% of NAB 10.47% of WBC
We don’t know about you, but we certainly find it a little bit strange that they own less of themselves than they do of ANZ. This certainly deserves a “Please Explain!”
They’re also a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
6.35% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 10.87% of Bank of Queensland.
NAB had a net profit of $4.2 billion for 2009. We read all about their wonderful year in their Financial Year Highlights
And Last but not Least,
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited is listed as the number four shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group Inc. You might know them better as Citi BANK. Citi Group Inc only has the largest financial network in the world.
3.84% of ANZ 4.30% of CBA 4.57% of NAB 4.79% of WBC
In fact, they’re a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
2.13% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 2.57% of Bank of Queensland.
Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998. The company holds over 200 million customer accounts in more than 140 countries. It is a primary dealer in US Treasury securities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup accessed 21 Feb 2011
Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive bailout by the U.S. government. Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore. In the last two financial years, their core businesses, together known as Citicorp, were profitable with $10.6 billion and $14.8 billion in net income. http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar10c_en.pdf (2010) http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar09c_en.pdf (2009)
Now, many still think the RBA is a quasi governmental body and belongs to the people in Australia, IF these top four pillars have the freedom to create credit from nowhere, which affects the Australian Economy as a whole, who actually DOES the greater power belong to, the PUBLIC OR THE PRIVATE??? THINK ABOUT IT.
So, with that, you can see that Australia (just as much the UK and US and Canada and the west in fact) is wholly owned and controlled by the globalists
So, now, let’s turn to CHINA! (we got there eventually):
Here is the HKSCC Nominees. You would think it had its ownership and incorporation in Hong Kong wouldn’t you? But no, it is a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON
And this is PRECISELY why the West HAD to get China to accept the “LEGAL PERSON”. To allow western interests to take hold of greater and greater holdings of China’s assets. So what happens when the Chinese build their exports to America and the west and, on our TV screens and in our newspapers, we are fed that this is “dangerous” and it is “bad for business” in the west and “We are so in debt to the chinese and it just gets larger and larger. Oh Wo is us!” Well, ever so quietly, our leaders are perfectly happy for western multinationals to go offshore and take our jobs with them because THEY are invested in not just the chinese banks (and a myriad of other banks, central and commercial) but also invested in the largest companies on earth wherever they may be. Oleg Deripaska’s “RUSAL” aluminium company, for example is the largest aluminium company on planet earth. Do you think it’s because of Oleg Deripaska? No, it’s because Peter Mandelson and George Osbourne – both “Ministers of the Crown” – support Deripaska with the advice that Nominee accounts such as HKSCC and BOEN etc, will invest in the company and build it up and make sure that European legislation and any other legislation is taken care of to ensure it becomes as large as it is BECAUSE they all, including the Queen and the City of London Bankers (Nat Rothschild for example) want their dividends at the expense of the public. It is the same for British Gas and British Nuclear fuels and the Oil companies who drill off our coast. That is why they don’t mind that our prices go up. That is why they don’t mind if everything is “offshored” to China and India and the Philippines etc. Because THEY OWN SUBSTANTIAL SHARES IN THE BANKS AND THE CORPORATIONS.
AND WHAT THEY WANT, IS TO TAP INTO APPROX 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE!
Now, flip back to the list of Banks which were mentioned re the City of London RMB China Bank agreement. Here’s one. Look at the second largest shareholder (and the third). Both of them “Foreign-owned legal persons”:
Now, here is another bank on that list:
Now take a look at this (and I promise there is a heap more), I just wish to keep this as succinct as possible (which, as you can see, it is not simply because, to understand this, it must be laid out as fully as possible):
OUR HEADS OF STATE AND OUR POLITICIANS AND SO CALLED PHILANTHROPISTS AND “TITANS” OF BUSINESS OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN THE BANK OF CHINA AND ITS COMMERCIAL BANKS! BUT IT’S WORSE:
THEY OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN CHINA’S BIGGEST COMPANIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE TOP TEN IN THE WORLD TODAY!
This is Petrochina’s annual report:
Then, just for one example. You have one of Her Majesty’s “Sirs” and a “Freeman of the City of London”
Sir. Malcolm Christopher McCarthy, also known as Callum, serves as the Chairman of European Operations at J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Sir. McCarthy served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Gas and Electricity Markets. He served senior positions in BZW and Kleinwort Benson, as well Department for Trade and Industry, US. Sir. McCarthy’s early career was in the chemical industry, and in the DTI where he served several posts, including Principal Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley when he served as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer protection. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, US. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. He joined Kent Reliance in 2010. He was Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, London. He also served as Director of Corporate Finance at Kleinwort Benson from 1985 to 1989. Sir. McCarthy served as the Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays’ investment banking arm BZW. From 1996 to 1998, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank, North America and Barclays Bank, Japan from 1993 to 1996. He served as the Director-General, Chief Executive and Chairman at Gas regulator Ofgas. At Ofgem, Sir. McCarthy was responsible for the introduction of greater competition into the gas and electricity markets. He served as senior executive of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Services Limited. He serves as Chairman of London at Promontory Financial Group, LLC. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Castle Trust. He served as the Co-Chairman at The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services Authority) from 2003 to 2008. He joined FSA in September 2003. Sir. McCarthy has been an Independent Director of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. since October 1, 2009. He has been an Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Indonesia) Co. Ltd. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Macau) Limited. since December 2009. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited since December 2009. He serves as a Trustee of Said Business School. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board at Her Majesty’s Treasury. He serves as a Trustee of International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. He serves as Member of Supervisory Board at Dutch MBS XVI B.V. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury. He serves as Non-Executive Director at OneSavings Bank Plc. He served as Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China, London Ltd. since December 2009. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Bank N.V. from January 25, 2011 to September 1, 2012. He served as a Director at Financial Services Authority. until September 19, 2008. Sir. McCarthy served as a Director of Bank of England from September 20, 2003 to September 19, 2008. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Holding N.V from January 14, 2011 to September 01, 2012. He is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, an Honorary Doctorate of the University of Stirling, and a Freeman of the City of London. He has an MA in History at Merton College of Oxford University, PhD in Economics of Stirling University, and MS in Business at Graduate School of Business of Stanford University.
He is the ONLY non Chinese member of the board of the Industrial Commercial Bank of China. Why?
Well it’s obvious. Here is precisely what is happening to us:
Our elite want access to China’s 1.5 billion people as a market. China’s elite say “Why do we want to give you that?”. Our elite say “Hey it’s simple Chin Chong! You give us access to your market and we’ll give you access to ours. You’re a bit behind with technology and know how so we’ll invest in your corporations and bring you up to speed. To enable that however, we need you to amend the way you interpret law. We need something called the legal person so that we are both talking the same language so to speak and so that we can “integrate”. Then while you get access to the west as a market, we can benefit from offshoring our jobs to you – you, therefore employing more of your people, increasing your GDP and making a packet. We, on the other hand, benefit from the lower wage costs and make UBER profits and dividends from our multinationals. we’ll ensure there is less competition for your goods and our chinese manufactured goods by destroying our own indigenous small and medium sized businesses and we’ll do that through our taxation system. YOU win, WE win, our people’s don’t win but hey! THAT is “globalism”. You want to maintain your power and so do we. Now, about Malaysia, We’ve both got a problem there because YOU will benefit greatly from being a powerhouse within a Trans-pacific partnership and so will we BUT these little Malaysian bastards are not playing ball! Capice? Now if we rattle them and destabilise their government, we might just get one which sees things our way. Now I know Malaysia has a “look est” policy but you could say we’re helping them to focus on their look east policy in a way because you, as their major trading partner, want the TPPA and better access to the South East Asian markets just as we do. There’s another good half a billion people at least in that area you know? So what if you, China, got very upset with your Asian neighbour over something? Oh, I don’t know, a plane disappearance perhaps with the majority of those onboard being chinese?”
Get the picture?
Ok, enough’s enough.
Stop with this “Rothschild owns the freescale patent” crap! You’re showing you ignorance or simply your wilful ignorance because you despise the Rothschilds as much as I do. But AGAIN, you are doing the attempt of exposing real stuff a total disservice by promulgating this crap about MH370 being attacked because of Freescale and Rothschild ending up with a patent!
It’s just very poor investigative power and understanding of fact. It’s an embarrassment quite frankly!
Further, it is clear from this, that people such as David Icke and Jeff Rense etc do not do much (if any) due diligence on what they decide to throw up on their websites as “journalism”. It seems that, as long as an article meets a certain narrative then, just like the mainstream, these “alternative media sites” will post it.
I know what Rothschild “jewish” zionism is just as much as any of you and I am clearly opposed to it – to such an extent it has got me in a spot of bother with the “authorities” previously. But I will NOT push a story that is SHIT! No matter if it implicates them or not!
I said on a previous blog about this, that a company would never give its IPR (property right) away to the employees who were salaried to do a job by the Corporate legal person they work for. Do you think Corporations are stupid? Do you think the people that own and control them got here to where they are by being thick? If you do you’re proving how thick YOU are!
I’m sorry if you’re one of my readers and you believe this story and so get offended when I’m calling you thick but that’s just how things are. I owe you nothing and you owe me nothing so take your readership elsewhere if you’re so offended and unwilling to drop your ignorance and LISTEN! I lose nothing but a reader. I only want readers who are discerning in their thought anyhow! Those who aren’t are going to have no positive effect on this world either way!
AND I find it fucking irritating ok?
Here’s the fricking patent ok? READ what it says. It says: “ASSIGNEE: FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC.” Do you know what “Assignee” means? It means the patented technology has been invented by these 4 chinese guys BUT they had already (under the agreement of an employment contract) ASSIGNED the PROPERTY of the PATENT to FREESCALE!
Do you know what that means? It means EVEN IF THEY HAD LIVED AND MH370 HAD NEVER HAPPENED, FREESCALE WOULD STILL OWN THE FUCKING PATENT! GET IT? Now SHUT THE FUCK UP about people getting murdered over a patent which was never theirs to begin with.
The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1, Section 8, that: the “Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.
The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention. An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention, not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under the direction and supervision of the inventor.
The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.
Meanwhile, it’s just a patent for a new design of semiconductor wafer. WHOOPEEDFUCKINGDOO!
Get a grip with your “CONSPIRACY THEORIES” or bugger off because this sort of shit is of no use to anyone but your “Famous Five find a wafer” or “Scooby Doo invents a new hotdog” mentality.
Do you ever get the feeling that, somehow, David Icke and friends are being told something they just don’t wish to hear?
From the original launch last year of their first Indiegogo campaign, asking for £100K then increasing it to £300K and getting it with no problem because a vast number of people “believed”; To now this – is it the third or fourth campaign? I’ve lost track. I think it’s the third. The second one asking for £400K (greedy bastards) and getting £100K. The first one, remember, all about getting “state of the art” equipment and premises which you kitted out for him and them, paid their wages etc then were provided with a third (or fourth) rate, dismal “tv station” which was, with that money, actually meant to have had studios in London and Los Angeles but, at the end of the day, they couldn’t even get London working right. A complete hash. A total disaster. Meanwhile, the promoted Sonia leaves under a cloud of financial “misadventure” by the station and about £260K of cash which had always been in Icke and Tabatabai’s company bank accounts but not a penny taken from it for THEIR business venture because they saw a gravy train- their own “central bank” creating money from nothing just for them. Who or what was that “Central Bank”? It was you!
And yet, here we are, 6 months from launch of that disaster, and the same people telling you they are going to broadcast via satellite (always the intention as stated by Icke’s son very early into first broadcasting as TPV) and the only way they could have had that planned was by having something which they said they would never have – an OFCOM licence. And yet they do – suggesting they were forced into it (with no non compliance dance by David) – and it would always have had to have been the plan.
So they’re looking for another £1/4 million from you and, with that, they are just dropping the “state of the art” equipment you already funded and the premises you already funded and have found new premises and a satellite to take them (not quite) global. It looks like they aren’t even covering America! One MAJOR market for them.
But, it would seem from this below, that the people aren’t “buying” it anymore. And, in fact BUYING it for you David.
And that is only a good thing in my view because it means those who, perhaps, thought they were awake before are now, seriously awake and far more discerning. Ironically, something David actually wishes them to be. Just not toward him.
So congratulations folks. I’m proud of you. “6 million views” but can only achieve £11K so far. One year ago that figure would be around the £150K by now.
Sorry David. You can fool some of the people some of the time…. you know the rest.
This blog could just as well be entitled “Who’s that girl?”
I happened to look at a previous blog of mine called “MH370 found in Antarctica!” and I admit, I totally missed what I had been looking at before without noticing something which now appears very obvious.
Do you remember the Co-Pilot stories about having two South African girls (one by the name of Jonti Roos) in the cockpit on a trip back to KL from Phuket?
I suggest you look again at those photos.
The bottom photo here of the two, is the one I used in my blog. It had been consistently published in the world’s media as being the photo of Fariq and the girl(s) in the cockpit. The problem is IT IS NOT FARIQ!
This girl, Jonti Roos, requires questioning and investigation by the Malaysian authorities because she has most definitely been a plant to fraudulently attempt to bring Fariq’s name and the name of Malaysia Airlines into disrepute.
I had my doubts about this story from the beginning, as I mentioned in a previously blog, but I hadn’t even picked this issue up at the time. Like many, I guess I gave the photos somewhat of a cursory glance. This is fraudulent misrepresentation and it has been used to harm reputations.
Look at the following photos:
Yes both photos are the same but they are from just two of the myriad of newspapers across the globe running this story and they are “Selling” them as photos of the girls with Fariq, the co-pilot on MH370. IT IS NOT FARIQ!
The following photo has Fariq in it (on the right) BUT it is NOT in the cockpit and you may also wish to notice Fariq’s stance with his hands placed behind his back. In no way is it suggesting he was being anything other than courteous for posing in the shot.
This story is entirely fabricated and I, for one, would like to know more about who this woman, Jonti Roos, is! And how come, it just so happens so coincidently, that she has photos of herself with one of the very pilots of MH370 and also felt the need to then be part of a worldwide story sold to the public that the pilot in these photos in the cockpit was Fariq Abdul Hamid?
Meanwhile, we have this statement made by a MAS Executive:
And, from the very beginning, I have doubted it too.
Who is “running” this show? These two men’s reputations are being destroyed on the back of a globalist, political agenda!
Meanwhile: Oh look! Two Military pilots in the cockpit flying to Diego Garcia, top secret naval base, not even watching the “road” ahead and they have two NFL babes in there with them! But no. Sure, that’s different right? It’s America! Hypocritical bastards.
Ever get the feeling that those scam “letters” you get through your email promising you substantial amounts of money are, somehow, targeted at you for some apparent reason?
They’re normally from Nigeria aren’t they? Well, I hadn’t seen one of them for a long long time come through to my personal email until now. I had never, however, received one from Malaysia (and I doubt this one actually is generated from Malaysia) but isn’t it just a coincidence?
Do they assume I’m just stupid enough to accept because they think “this guy likes Malaysia and Malaysians so we’ll try this”? However, what I’d like to know is how they have connected my blog with my personal email.
Just the other day, I received two comments on here (I forget to which posts but one of them was the “Malaycia Airlines” one I think (I need to check). The two comments came in not quite simultaneously but within minutes of each other certainly. I very rarely get such comments and I tend to ignore them but there was something about these two coming in quick succession and also the “referral” addresses which they came from which piqued my interest. The referral addresses were peculiar “private networks” with localhost numbers. Normally, referral addresses will come from either specific websites like Rense or Davidicke.com or search engines etc.
However, the “letter” I receive to my personal email was this:
From: Abdul Rahim Bin Md Yusuf (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sent: 26 March 2014 14:57:56
With appropriate greatest respect, I desire your pleasure knowing that this
Proposal is a surprise to you. My name is Abdul Rahim Bin Md Yusuf, an
Attorney at law. A deceased client of mine (Jason x), who hereinafter
shall be referred to as my client died as a result of heart failure on
the 11th February, 2009.
I have contacted you to assist in distributing the money left behind by my
late client to escape confiscation by the bank in which the Thirteen Million,
Four Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand United States Dollars
[USD$13,425,000.00] is deposited. The bank in which this huge amount
is lodged has issued me a notice to contact the next-of-kin to this funds
otherwise the account will be confiscated.
My proposition to you is to seek your consent to present you as the
Next-of-kin and beneficiary of my above named client. Besides, you
have the same last name as my late client, the proceeds of this account
can be paid to you. Then we can share the amount on mutual agreed
percentages. All Legal documents to back up your claim as my late
client’s next of kin will be gradually provided.
All I require is your honest co-operation to enable us see this transaction
through. This will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will
protect you from any breach of the law. If this business proposition offends
your moral values, do accept my apology. I must use this opportunity to
implore you to exercise the utmost indulgence to keep this matter
extra-ordinary confidential whatever your decision while I await your
prompt response. Please contact me at once to indicate your interest.
I will like you to acknowledge the receipt of this message as soon
as possible via email.
This transaction will be treated private with absolute confidentiality
and sincerity. Please, do not contact me through my company details
for confidential reason. I look forward to your quick indication. Do
confirm the receipt of this email.
Abdul Rahim Bin Md Yusuf.
No. 156, Tingkat Satu
Jalan Kelab Cinta Sayang
NOTE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely
for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, be advised
that you have received this email in error and that any dissemination,
distribution, copying or use is strictly prohibited. If you received this
e-mail in error or without authorization, please notify me immediately by a
reply e-mail and delete the email from your system. For confirmation,
please send a message to (email@example.com)
Now, Sungai Petani is north of Kuala Lumpur up on the northeast of Malaysia. Interestingly, I spent some time around that particular area and Penang a few years back doing some conceptual planning of a wireless network.
A very enjoyable experience and great people. Perhaps I should take the money and run eh? 😉 lol
Sorry “Abdul”. Do you really get people to fall for this crap?
Send me another one just with an acknowledgement that you read this and the next time I’m in Malaysia, we’ll have a beer! 😉
Chinese people and even Malaysians are jeering at the Malaysian authorities for their “incompetence” and/or intended obfuscations but all of these people, for some reason unknown to me, are choosing to ignore two VERY BIG issues:
1. What would Malaysia’s government’s motive be for covering up this event or even instigating it? I cannot think of a good reason can you?
2. The Malaysian government/authorities do not have the capability to compete with the technology (radar jamming for example) which the Americans and Chinese have. Further, they do not have control of the satellite data which is being used to entirely fabricate this story and the location of MH370.
James Corbett (Corbett Report) – whom I have a great deal of respect for in the investigative journalism and detail he puts into his work – all validated; has published this video regarding the possibility (and verified capability) of remote hijacking. He also postulates such to have been used on 9/11 and I am with him all the way here (even though I still have my own deep questions regarding the planes themselves full slicing through the two twin towers and there having been a plane at all at the Pentagon OR Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
This video is very much worth watching. The Chinese people and Malaysian people need to understand two other things:
1. Globalists have a motive to do this (which I have already written about regarding the TPPA – Trans Pacific Partnership – which Malaysia is showing great concern about. Obama wants this trade agreement very much. He wants it for his globalist handlers. He does not wish to be a failure.) Globalists also exist in the UK, Europe, China, Australia and yes, even Malaysia. Think of globalists as “Nation X”. Do not think in terms of this being handled and collaborated on by USA and China V Malaysia or any country V another. This is GLOBALIST V An issue (no matter where that issue lies geographically). and one must remember that our intelligence services are in the hands of people like David Rockefeller and the Bush family. If you do not understand this then please look it up! It is a fact and it is a documented and admitted fact. Just as is the Rockefeller influence on the United Nations.
2. Through globalist connections and pressure, the CIA DO HAVE the ability to remotely take over a Boeing 777. I have already covered this also because it is documented (see below). Boeing patented the technology to allow the CIA to remotely take charge!
Then we have the documented, factual evidence of the Boeing patent:
I know these blogs are being read by substantial numbers now in Malaysia however, in all of the last 7 days, only 3 views from China? Now why would that be? And WHO would those 3 views be!
So, perhaps that control of the net by China’s government is not allowing the chinese people access to such information? Deep Packet Inspection boys eh? I wonder whose Deep Packet Inspection technology you’re using though. Wouldn’t be labeled “Made in the USA” now would it? 😉
Around the world in 7 days.
What is it now? About 1.5 billion people in China and I get 3 views? When I get views from the rest of the world that make sense?
Could this be how and why the chinese people are whipped into a frenzy against Malaysia? Because their access to information is censored heavily? Well we know this to be fact. We have motive and capability but 1.5billion people on the planet might just not be quite aware of that.
Who’s a naughty little Chinese (and Rothschild/Rockefeller) globalist then?
Sorry to all you believers in this story out there but, as much as I despise this family like any the rest of you, this story is just crap. Someone has created it out of their imagination.
Ok, If you are working for a corporation, it is the corporation (written into all employment agreements) which assumes the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) of any and all patentable designs. A company like Freescale (or any high end technology company) is NOT, I repeat NOT going to allow employees to have ownership of any patent which they have brought into existence. This idea that 5 employees each held 20% and because they all died on the plane, it now belongs to Rothschild, is sheer fantasy.
Not only that, but even the idea that – if you bring Rothschild into the picture as being a major shareholder – that he would allow any corporation that he had an interest in to hand over the rights to patents to a mob of employees – is just ridiculous.
Coming up with stories like this actually hurts the dissemination of REAL issues with the Rothschilds. It’s stories like this that allow them to point to them and say “Ridiculous what these conspiracy theorists come up with isn’t it? That’s why you should never listen to them.”
But Mr Icke just links to shit like this because it falls into line with anything he considers is true because it’s Rothschild zionism at play again. David Icke is a fricking disservice to this very real issue we are dealing with overall. And it’s another reason why I am entirely uninterested in his linking to my blog.
Put plainly: Piss off Icke. I want no association.
There are speculations which are based on reasonable extrapolations of data or info and there is pure made up crap which has no foundation in reality.
Yes Freescale may well have very interesting technology. I don’t doubt that. But this patent story is patently crap!
Underground, overground wobbling free, the wobbles of inmarsat evidently….
Wibble wobble wobbly wibble! The trouble with tribbles and “experts” dribbles!
So now we have a wibbly wobbly satellite! And those wibbly wobbles then allow the determination of a flightpath to the south. But those wibbly wobbles just became apparent in the last few days. The inmarsat engineers just had a “eureka” moment and said “Ah! We forgot the wobbling!”
So, again, what I’ve been telling you – that they could not possibly come up with those north and south arcs because the satellite data DOES NOT give direction/location ONLY distance – is verified. And I agree with every word of this article down to the point at which it “wobbles”.
1. IF it wobbles, that “wobble” must be pretty minute. I mean now we’re into the 0.00001% kind of territory here with all of this data. But isn’t it all interesting (just as I suggested) that the info has been drip fed out over the days and weeks to a point where they just say “Given where the plane crashed, we may never find the flight data recorder (FDR) or cockpit voice recorder (CVR) — theorizing about the fate of flight 370 might be all we can ever do.” As I said much earlier: They could do a “Osama Bin Laden” and say it was lost at sea just as he (and the evidence) was buried at sea. And this is exactly what they have done.
2. Show us the wobble and show us the data. Has anyone ever heard of the IPCC> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Tell me? How much BULLSHIT have these people – these “experts”, these “esteemed scientists” who are funded by the world’s governments to come up with politically motivate science – fed us? Wobble my ass! I’ve seen more “wobble” in a girly bar in Manila than what that satellite will! But they’ve got to introduce a wobble factor when the original stab at saying the data tells them there are these two possibilities of arcs and people start questioning that.
So think about this: The ENTIRE story rests on a tiny, minute wobble in a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the earth. Let that slowly sink in. The ENTIRE story. The entire reason why we are told a plane crashed into the ocean never to be seen again. And it also comes down to the calculations of (and this is also telling/important) ONE SINGLE SATELLITE OWNED BY ONE SINGLE COMPANY WHO HAPPEN TO BE BRITISH. It also just so happens that Diego Garcia is a British territory but no matter.
How about getting verification from multiple other satellites which must have flown over the area or are, at a different point in the orbit but still geostationary and, although they may not have received pings there could just be some other form of identifying where the plane went by matching up data. Military satellites? Polar satellites in low earth orbit but which cross the Indian ocean? There must be tens of satellites which could, in one form or another, provide info into this. But no. Just inmarsat (with a wobble). Another small point to just note is that the article speaks about the satellite wobbling during its orbit. In a strict sense, the satellite doesn’t actually orbit at all because it is stationary relative to its point on earth. It’s kind of like sticking a cocktail stick into a sausage, turning the sausage with your fingers and saying the end of the stick orbits the sausage. Not really eh? But ok, the satellite still has to move in real terms.
By the way, a correction: It is not Inmarsat 4F1 which is 64 deg East, it is Inmarsat 3F1.
Inmarsat 4F1, which the article confuses with 3F1, just so happens to be located at 143.5 deg East. Now THAT satellite would be well positioned to cover west of Australia too. Can’t we get data in some way from that satellite to do triangulation?
Now, here’s what’s really interesting: Both Inmarsat 3F1 AND Inmarsat 4F1 provide the same services it seems. BGAN
The “BGAN Family” is a set of IP-based shared-carrier services, as follows:
BGAN: Broadband Global Area Network for use on land. BGAN benefits from the new I-4 satellites to offer a shared-channel IP packet-switched service of up to 492 kbit/s (uplink and downlink speeds may differ and depend on terminal model) and a streaming-IP service from 32 up to X-Stream data rate (services depend on terminal model).
X-Stream delivers the fastest, on demand streaming data rates from a minimum of 384 kbit/s up to around 450 kbit/s (service depend on location of user and terminal model). Most terminals also offer circuit-switched Mobile ISDN services at 64 kbit/s and even low speed (4.8 kbit/s) voice etc. services. BGAN service is available globally on all I4 satellites.
FleetBroadband (FB): A maritime service, FleetBroadband is based on BGAN technology, offering similar services and using the same infrastructure as BGAN. A range of Fleet Broadband user terminals are available, designed for fitting on ships.
SwiftBroadband (SB): An aeronautical service, SwiftBroadband is based on BGAN technology and offers similar services. SB terminals are specifically designed for use aboard commercial, private, and military aircraft.
Now my guess is that BOTH Inmarsat 3F1 and 4F1 can pick up these pings and BOTH of them, therefore, can be used to triangulate to give actual positioning of the plane. Both satellites cover the area where, we are told, the flight was heading.
Would inmarsat like to confirm or deny that both satellites will have received the ping data?
Ah! “Why and how did MH370 end up in the middle of the Southern Indian Ocean?” indeed Metro. Indeed!
FAR more questions than answers because there literally ARE no answers. None whatsoever! So how they can say it ended up where they say it did is anyone’s guess. I’m glad you agree.
“What we do not know is why the plane would be in an area thousands of miles off course, far from any possible landing sites and without any hard evidence of its whereabouts.”
Answer Metro? Because they’re busy creating the story as we speak. They’ve called in the Coronation Street scriptwriters under scrutiny by the CIA and various other “stakeholders”.
“So it is perhaps surprising that ‘new satellite data’ (love the quotes boys! ;-)) has been able to convince authorities ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ (there’s those quotes again! Like it! 🙂 ) that the plane crashed in the ‘southern search corridor’ (and again) without any debris actually being recovered”!
Aye METRO, it’s a funny old world innit? 😉
The Prime Minister of Malaysia, like any PM or President anywhere, doesn’t know his arse from his elbow but he’s the man who’s put in front of you to give you the news. The fact is, he’s “advised” because he wouldn’t know an orbiting satellite from a lavatory pan and what sometimes orbits around them!
What we have here is either “We don’t have a goddamned clue” 9and it is very possible the Malaysians don’t so don’t blame them quite yet) or “We know precisely what happened but if we said then WW3 would break out”. I go for the latter. This flight did not “disappear” and find its way to the southern Indian ocean and crash close to the Antarctic.
Where else would these people (whoever did this) want to say that plane disappeared? What better than one of the most inhospitable parts of the planet, thereby giving them absolute cover for not having to come up with any proof of what happened at all? Why would they do that? Because so much of any story they would otherwise put forward, would be taken apart by people who would plainly see the conflicts and contradictions.
So what do you do? You say it is lost and you say “The data points to the most inhospitable region of our planet.
Ok now let’s consider the options here for why it ended up down there (which it didn’t even if they come up with the odd part of a plane in days, weeks or months or years once it’s all forgotten about).
Let’s consider what Inmarsat (a British satellite company tied to UK government/civil service) are saying:
“We don’t know whether the plane stayed at a constant speed, we don’t know whether its headings changed subsequently,” said Inmarsat senior vice-president Chris McLaughlin.
“We applied the autopilot speeds – about 350 knots. We applied what we knew about the fuel and range of the aircraft to hit the series of ping information we had.
They know jack shit! BUT they have said they ASSUME “autopilot”.
Ok, now autopilot tends to just fly with a pre-determined (or changed in flight) flightpath. You tell me why any Aircraft Captain or first officer would programme the plane to head toward the southern indian ocean EVEN IF they were on a suicide mission? If you were suicidal, you still would not plot a course for nowhere. With that frame of mind, you’d want to make a statement in one way or the other.
There was some kind of fault or fire or both. Ok, so let’s assume that possibility. AGAIN, how is it that a flight, originally scheduled for Beijing and with a change of flightpath which was definitely suggesting north (according to what we’re told) BUT, in fact was showing a tendency toward the west (Diego Garcia territory) ended up, due to a fault or fire, heading for the deep south Indian ocean?
So let’s say a third party in the plane hijacked it. AGAIN, why would a 3rd party then head for the southern Indian ocean? Are you beginning to get the picture? WHAT would that give the hijacker?
I’m sure there are other “reasonable” theories out there. Hypoxia is another one I keep hearing, but again: Why the Southern Indian Ocean? The flightpath – particularly considering Inmarsat ASSUMED autopilot (and who are Inmarsat to assume anything if not satellite related?) – would hardly have been the Southern Indian Ocean before hypoxia started having its affect now would it? Ah! But the hypoxia disoriented the pilot(s) and through that they then plotted in a course, mistakenly, for the Southern Indian Ocean? Oh yeah! I go with that boys I really do!
Looks like Inmarsat have just talked themselves into substantial new business however. Talk up the need, the regulations are changed to fit, you’re a major (monopoly) Satellite supplier and supplier of such kit and away you go! What YOU need, Inmarsat, are far more events like this!
Read the above statement again. They don’t have a clue and, excuse the pun, but they are “winging it”. But they can wing it because they hold the cards don’t they? “… the first time it’s been done.” Indeed it is, IF it was done at all!
SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEW DATA AND THE DATA FROM A FEW DAYS AGO? AND HOW COULDN’T YOU HAVE HAD THIS DATA A FEW DAYS AGO? But we’ll never get an adequate explanation of this will we?
Absolutely contrived (by the Chinese government and possibly another government starting with the word “United”) propaganda against the Malaysian government and all things Malaysian. Who paid you to make that statement son? Or who has whipped you and the families up into such a frenzy against Malaysia to make that statement? Why no statement regarding the amount of time it took (or the conflicting reports given by certain quarters in the US and UK) Inmarsat and Boeing and Rolls Royce to verify THEIR positions and THEIR information? How do you know that the fault doesn’t lie with Boeing and that, perhaps, they did a repair on the plane’s wing a year or two back and gave it the “OK” when, in fact, they maybe did a very bad botch job of the repair?
How do you know it was not the actions of an intelligence agency? Your own even? Why are you just pointing the finger at EVERYTHING Malaysian? Malaysia have not been in control of the investigation because Malaysia do not own satellites for example. They also need to rely on Boeing and the ACARS facility etc. How do you know that the Malaysian government and authorities have not been fed shit and that is why it has all been confused? Not because Malaysia wanted it to be but simply due to the fact that they had to rely on another country’s intelligence regarding data acquisition and technology.
No mate. What you have stated stinks of pre prepared Propaganda. And you can trust me – without wishing to sound at all racist, I’ve had experience of the way you people work. I’ve also had experience of the way Malaysians work. There’s good and bad in every nationality but some are just a little more prone to one or the other.
Who do you work for pal?
Now to Najib. The entire thing about his statement and how ridiculous it is is this: That very statement is a statement he could have made on day one. He is saying nothing new and he has NO valid “new evidence” or data to give him any authority to make the statement now as if it is something new.
Meanwhile, he goes on to say that the search continues. So what’s changed? Absolutely nothing. Except ONE thing: HE has made a statement and that statement is made to simply “close the book” so to speak. To now give time for the “official story” to be fully prepared and then presented with all its faults and assumptions and absolutely false evidence.
It will be Malaysia’s equivalent of the 9/11 commission report.
All theories considered and then the preparation of the final document which has considered all angles except one:
DIEGO GARCIA AND THE REMOTE CONTROL OF MH370.
What’s of further interest to me however is this: If these families are so distrusting and so distraught at it all, then why are they not even stating they smell a real rat? All of their venom is pointed at Malaysia while they seem to refuse to consider other very plausible alternatives. Even the families don’t seem to be too interested in going there. Now why would that be? Could it be anything to do with what I just wrote about Paul Weeks and his wife?
Is this also some form of “Sandy Hook”?
Can you say you know any of these people we’re served up in the media? Who DOES know them?
“SEPANG: Rolls Royce, the engine manufacturer of the ill-fated MH370, has denied reports that the jetliner was sending engine data for some five hours after it lost contact with the main control tower last Saturday morning.
In making this public, Defence-cum-Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Malaysian authorities have checked with Rolls Royce, and the engine maker of the Boeing 777-200ER jet has categorically denied the reports which had quoted unnamed sources.
Over the last two days, unnamed US officials have repeatedly said that engine data from MH370 was beamed back to Rolls Royce after 1.30am on Saturday when the plane carrying 239 passengers and crew went missing on its flight from the Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing, China.”
Now this is not the only example of “unnamed sources” feeding into the confusion. And if you think for one second that these are just “mistakes” then you are naive. We have had “unnamed sources” feed information into this media circus continuously about all aspects while we have also had “experts” who have (and who are) done nothing but speculate – sometimes totally erroneously – about what they think has happened. Anyone can do that and their “expert opinion” over the time, has proven that.
But we need “experts” to speculate don’t we? Just as we need “experts” to speculate on the stock markets and destroy the world’s economy! When are the people of earth finally going to understand they are being played morning, noon and night by “experts” fed up to us by media who are advised that they must speak to this “expert”? Meanwhile the media also serve us unnamed sources continuously and yet, if you or I were to contact the media with a story, the one thing they want (and they will do nothing without it) is that you state your name, address, contact details and are willing to have your name and face spread across their front pages. But NOT when it comes to “unnamed sources” it seems. And why do you think this is?
Because the unnamed sources are “planted” to feed that confusion. YOU NEED TO WAKE UP TO THIS!
Why would a “respected” newspaper give these unnamed sources credence? (well because of who they are I guess). Therefore, who they are must mean they are considered reliable in their information which means they must be close to the action. Which means they know what is fact and what is fiction. So then why would such sources feed this information as “fact” when, in fact, it is “fiction”? Or is it?
What if the “unnamed sources” are actually providing the facts while the authorities are dismissing them? You might say that the Malaysian authorities’ statement in this case of the engine data is corroborated by Boeing itself. But then who is Boeing? Again, why has it not been raised that Boeing have a patent on remote control of their aircraft? Why has this not even been mentioned in the mainstream media? Boeing is joined at the hip with the US government! THINK about it! They are involved in military and space projects. They depend on the US government for contracts for such AND they depend upon the kickbacks given to US government officials when these officials ensure contracts with overseas customers. This is how the world works folks! To ignore all this (and boy are they desperate to keep you ignorant and naive) is just allowing them to do as they do again and again and again.
PLEASE FOR GOD’S SAKES WAKE UP HUMANITY! Otherwise, we really are all screwed.
The Bank of England have just, in the last week or so, come out and admitted that money is nothing but an IOU – a PROMISSORY OBLIGATION! Do you understand just how extraordinary this admission is? Yes many of us knew but for them to now admit it is earth changing. But be careful there is a reason behind it. They are STILL trying to keep the idea that THEY create the money in your mind. They don’t. They ISSUE it. That is one HUGE difference which you MUST understand.
The way to understanding who really creates the money (i.e. YOU – something they do not wish you to realise) is by getting to grips with Mathematically Perfected Economy and the basic theft of your PROMISSORY OBLIGATION.
Why do I mention this in a blog about MH370? Because it is the most fundamental issue which creates the rest of the corruption and wars and hijacks that’s why. The money issue and the legal person issue is where the entire con on humanity resides. It is then, from that fundamental con, the rest of world events take shape.
Only now does the Mail run this story? Yet, see my communications with the Independent from a few days back and the blog it was based on a day or so before that.
The Malaysian authorities suggest it was just a mistake. Well another HUGE coincidence that, while the line shows between the torso and the legs, it just so happens that the legs are in perfect line with the torso. What’s the likelihood of that happening due to just a “mistake”? Does anyone work in the area of probability within our press/media these days?
Meanwhile, what does this “solid matter” look like to you? It’s the right colour that’s for sure. Of BULLSHIT!
That looks very suspicious to me alright. Suspicious in the way that it has been added as a “layer” on the photo. A little like a President’s birth certificate!
People are playing games. Various and many games.
There are people in our governments and of significant influence who need to be exposed, taken out in the street and their kneecaps shot, their testicles removed and then thrown in a zoo.
That zoo should be set up on Diego Garcia with free flights run over the course of many many years to allow each and every human being residing on this planet to see the George Bush’s, Tony Blairs, David Camerons, Barack Obamas, Rothschilds, Rockefellers and man many of the satanic, paedophile bastards who do their bidding, to be seen in their natural inhabitat as they tear lumps from each other.