[state v money] here we go again

Metzler private bank, Klaus Zumwinkel, Leonardo Del Vecchio - what do they have in common?

They're part of the raids which are seeing this sort of thing:

Christian Democrat politicians warned business leaders that irresponsible behaviour could come to threaten Germany’s “social market economy”, which merges free enterprise and the provision of welfare.

This is at first sight a puzzling thing.

Quite apart from the enrichment of state coffers, whom will this thing benefit? The ability for the state to regulate further, of course and to pour more into the EU coffers.

It won't benefit the ordinary citizen one little bit and it would be an interesting study to follow the garnered millions to their final destination. The old money appears to back the EU and the EU backs the global economy and its own enrichment within that economy. If a few unclever and expendable managers in the open sphere go to the wall, the old money has fulfilled its part of the Faustian bargain and state heat is off them.

The relationship between the usurers and the state has always been delicate and based on credit, percentages, rentals and the real agenda:

The final fall of the Templars may have started over the matter of a loan. The young Philip IV, King of France (also known as "Philip the Fair") had needed cash for his war with the English and asked the Templars for more money. They refused. The King assigned himself the right to tax the French clergy.

At dawn on Friday, October 13, 1307, scores of French Templars were simultaneously arrested by agents of King Philip, later to be tortured in locations such as the tower at Chinon, into admitting heresy in the Order.

Philip had clearly made up the accusations* and did not believe any of the Templars to have been party to such activities. In fact, he had invited Jacques de Molay to be a pall-bearer at the funeral of the King's sister on the very day before the arrests.

They're hardly likely to make that mistake again. There is the little question of the real money as well:

By the mid-1960’s was a Europe awash in serious cross-border crime, including heroin trafficking, trafficking in women, stolen art and cultural artifacts, gun-running, cigarette and liquor smuggling to avoid excise taxes, and recurrent corruption and financial scandals.

Now, with the breakdown of national borders and increased activity by an EU militsia, are those interests better protected or more vulnerable?

This thing is an internal matter of who controls the trillions. If there are two sides - the old money and state control on one side [example here]:


... and free enterprise, however corrupt, on the other, which would you support?

* There is another point of view which holds that Philip knew very well the sort of thing they got up to and as long as the money was forthcoming he'd stay shtum. He did a JFK, it seems. I trust no one seriously disputes these days the occult realm of the old rulers of Europe.