I discussed “the Creature from Jekyll Island case” before under the crime against humanity known as central banking; now the point is, that the banksters brought their Federal Reserve home demonstrates their degree of control over their environment.
If ever need be to put things in the right perspective, it is worth reminding a couple of circumstances of this case. It was about setting up the biggest ripoff of a whole huge nation ever since its formation, and stopping a nation−wide trend of real economy and people freeing themselves from their yoke and thriving. Quite differently from today, central banking was not taken for granted at all at the time, but on the contrary it was something new and, what is more, however short its track record had managed to be terrible; such track record being public knowledge, it raised strong objections and dissent rather than acceptance and support, as much among politicians and journalists as among the people, which at the time were quite less apathetic than today.
Such was the environment the banksters managed to control.

Perhaps I should call “the Not−So−Junk Bonds case”, “the thrifts and the not−junk bonds parable”, if not “two birds with one stone”…
Fact is, as history repeats itself, they once again had the same common problem: how to reverse an adverse trend. A trend expressible not only in the aforementioned terms of loss of market share and liberation from economic savery, but also in terms of big fishes keeping the small fry subjugated. And their common goal was, indeed, in terms of two birds with one stone.

The first bird were the thrift insititutions. We have already seen before how thrift institutions were part of the real economy threatening the monopolistic grip of banksters over the nation’s financial resources which then had to be stopped.
The second bird were the not−so−junk bonds. Griffin tells us that these are stocks and bonds offered by smaller companies. The so called “institutional investors”, such as mutual funds and retirement funds, do not consider them because they are too small for the huge order of magnitude of their investments, hence many of them are not traded in the New York Stock Exchange but rather in smaller exchanges or directly between brokers in what is called “over the counter”. To compensate for this disadvantage and attract investors, they had to pay higher interest rates. Griffin continues, despite the fact that most of these were superior−grade investments to those from the Fortune−500 companies, some brokers derided them as not being “investment grade”. Yet, not only they were excellent performers, but they had also become the bakbone of new industry and thus an important part of the American economy; in fact, while the Fortune−500 companies were shrinking and eliminating 3.6 million jobs, this segment of new industry grew and created 18 million new jobs. From 1981 to 1991, the average return of ten−year Treasury bill was 10.4 percent, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 12.9 percent, and the average return on so−called junk bonds was 14.1 percent, attracting investors and creating a new market. That too was a part of the real economy thereatening to bypass the monopolistic grip of banksters, get rid of it and thrive, that had to be stopped.

And two birds with one stone is precisely what happened, when they dared to raise their heads from under the radar, into activities which were a matter solely for the big fishes, namely engineering corporate deconglomerations and takeovers. Not−so−junk bonds were targeted, and both not−so−junk bonds and thrift institutions were shot down. The first move was defaming these high−yield securities by labelling them not merely “not investment grade” but “junk”. The second move, built on the first, was having a law passed requiring thrift institutions to get rid of that “junk” to “protect the public”. The result was an interesting chain reaction. The imposition on thrift institutions to get rid of them struck a blow to the value of those securities; thrift institutions forced to liquidate them at once took a loss on the sale; that loss weakened them and pushed them slipping down the slope from thriving to basket cases; as such they became affected by endemic insolvency and by the ensuing addiction to government support; in exchange to that government support they yielded their control or even ownership to the Resolution Trust Company, an agency of that same government who crashed them; the Resolution Trust Company thus become the country’s biggest owner of those securities flooded the market with them and further destroyed their value; the creators of this new market of smaller companies’ high−yield securities faced a tide of lawsuits from government regulators, aggrieved investors and “justice” seekers; the big fishes of Wall Street bought up those securities at bargain prices and took control of that new market; when the securities recovered, it was the big fishes of Wall Street who profited from that instead of the thrift institutions; and still the big fishes of Wall Street from then on became the leading traders of those securities. And they all lived happily ever after, isn’t it?

That was an example; now raise your gaze towards the horizon and try to get an idea of an overall picture teemed with such examples as far as the eye can see. Can you estimate their economic impact? And their ensuing social impact?
Once done that, do you realise we’re still confined to a “mere” monetary and financial scope? I mean, it’s not that the fallout of “mere” monetary and financial crimes is “circumscribed”; far from it. Not by chance I put the philosopher’s stone between the core and the overall picture as the tool enabling the suppressives to pursue their goal, alas, realistically.
The point here is, the monetary and financial scope is but the beginning, the one where they’re merely warming up; the “best” is yet to come, as the effects of their cause, like cancer, metastasise everywhere in the social fabric.

In the Synopsis I raised the question: “How come so few people can harm so many so much?” The answer may be broken down in two halves.
First half: the tool discussed in the philosopher’s stone at the service of the intention discussed in the core.
And now the second half is the answer to such questions as: “How come that all sorts of downward thrusts are so rampant in society, and that all the destructive propaganda, dogmas, lies, swindles, etc. are so widespread and powerful in the minds of people? Is it really just because of our humanoid faults?”

Well, so much for the “what”. What about the “how”?
The main reason why the cases above are here as examples is not to focus on what they can do; that “what” they can do is staggering.must not distract us from what is the point here, but on the contrary ir must let us concentrate on it: “how” they can do that? In fact, these two cases are here as examples of that “how”, too: Griffin wisely drew our attention on the fact that any cartel has to be created by legislation and sustained by the power of government, either by force or, preferably, under the deception of protecting its victims – us. And in both cases that is exactly what banksters achieved: their will and their robbery became law. This requires a consenting legislative body. Being that legislative body elective, this in turn requires an electorate at the very least not dissenting. Being the orientation of the electorate based on their judgement, knowledge and will, this in turn requires education and media at the very least not dissenting. And having at their service what is known as social engineering.
And social engineering, by the way, is composed of two specific branches; not only sowing, but the preparation of the soil as well: not only manipulating us to implant what we’re supposed to “spontaneously” think, but making us more manipulable so as to make these implants easier and firmer, too. And that’s where the abyss of the real Pandora’s vase opens up inside us, behind our gullible back.
That is what I call the banksters’, the moneypulators’, the suppressives’ environment. And that is what I call control over the environment. Or, rather, rule over the environment. That their will and robbery became law is the evidence of such rule.

It has been said that many ways of having fun cost money, isn't it? And now we know someone does have the money. What sorts of fun will the moneypulators and their leg pullers toy with, exactly?