It is so funny

When I have discussed on these boards that there is an international political movement that calls itself and its aims "the New World Order," it is not for some kind of shock effect or trolling or for fun.

When I have discussed on these boards that there is a financial racket that has literally declared war on the American people and intends to manage the descent of this economy, consolidate assets, and do it through the debasing of the currency unit, it is not for shock effect or trolling or for fun.

I understand that people have been socially pre-conditioned to find conversations about those topics to be treated as funny, ridiculous, paranoid, kooky, etc...

So fine. Don't believe me. I'm wacky.

But please tell me why Reuters is running headlines in its Business & Finance section that literally announce Wall Street's consolidation racket and that these moves are part of forming a new world order. Additionally in the body of the article it declares that liquidity will be pumped (by the Fed) into the market (which destroys the USD in the FOREX market and sends commodities sky high, that the domestic consumer then picks up as inflated market prices) so that preferred primary lenders can buy out the devalued and over leveraged for next to nothing.

Laugh it up. Feel free to make tin foil hat and black helicopter comments at your discretion, just realize it is your economy being hollowed out and that real suffering is coming down the pipe for you.

This is the best LiveJournal I have ever read.

You aren't presenting the Reuters article accurately. What Reuters says is that the massive drop in price of Bear Stearns (precipitating their sale) opened eyes of the credit analysts to a "new world order" or new reality about a credit crisis. "New world order" here isn't literal. It's a metaphorical way of stating that the evident weakness of banking and mortgages represents a completely different picture than what people expected a short time ago. The author also uses "reality check" as a synonym for "new world order."

So, while consolidation is taking place, this trend is stemming from a credit crisis and the weakness of US banks (which were previously exaggerated in strength). The fact that this buyout stems from a crisis and not a plot is emphasized by the lack of golden parachutes to the former executives of Bear Stearns.

Don't get too caught up in the poetics of the writer's terminology.

this is why im voting for obama.
because Hillary is an alien shape shifting lizard from the fourth dimension
that is bent on world domination and control of the worlds gold so that when her home planet comes back into range, she can ship it to them, and they can put it all in their atmosphere.
Plus, she's into satanic child molestation and ritual murder.

By the way, I have no intention of mocking you about tinfoil hats. I just disagree with your reading of the Reuters article.

fucking science, i think something's wrong with my puter. it took replying to MrCrisp to get the pic to show up.

It's not just you. I had to do the same thing.

http://www.beastiemania.com/whois/public_enemy/public_enemy.jpg

That was a colossal waste of my time.

That is funny.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah boyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

"Ha ha" funny or peculiar funny?

though i'm usually known for my effort when it comes to pictorial comments, sometimes i just like to take it easy.

vermicious_knid are you suggesting that the whole 'credit crunch' was purposely engineered by the Fed in order to make smaller financial institutions susceptible to takeover by larger ones?

Bearn Stearns is by no means a smaller institution.

No, but there are plenty of them parented in their holdings

Yes and no. I am saying that the lax monetary policies of the Fed and then private commercial banks lending from fractionally reserved Fed backed assets created this situation.

There are winners and there are losers. The winners (JP Morgan - a shareholding Member bank) got a hell of a deal.

You have such a lovely way of completely misconstruing the articles you cite.

"Literally announce Wall Street's consolidation racket"? Apparently one of us doesn't understand the meaning of the word literally. Or was the word 'racket' used in there somewhere that I missed?

I notice that you haven't bothered to respond to RedBstrd's refutation of your analysis of the article. I'm guessing you have no answer.

My point is that the way you phrased it above makes it sound as though the Reuters article supported your ridiculous conspiracy theory. It does not.

Nor does it suggest that this is the harbinger of doom for US banking.

Once again, vermicious_knid, you are letting the electric and wonderful human talent for discerning and analyzing patterns take you too far. This is why you get cat-calls and jeers about conspiracy paranoia. It now has been shown to you in concrete fashion in this very thread. Your mind, already seeing and analyzing specific patterns with regard to global economy and the NWO, sees that phrase in the Bear Stearns article, and to you (indeed, to many many people) it feels like a "fit" or a "connection" when in reality it is not only mere correlation, but also correlation which has already been acted upon by several different rhetors before the message even reached you.